Why Not The Worst? Part III

Here's what Dan Coats, the former Republican Senator tasked with ensuring Harriet Miers' ascendency to the Supreme Court, had to say about her to CNN (as quoted in The New York Times this morning):

If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be3 a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole.

Whew. Is this man really promoting the idea that we should be ruled by the stupid?
While I find this comment hilarious, I also am frightened by it. Are there really people who do not understand that when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, we need the best, brightest, most experienced legal minds our nation can produce?
Do people really not understand that elevating stupidity -- or even ignorance and inexperience -- puts all of us in danger (what have they been doing for the past five years?)
If we want stupid judges, shouldn't we also demand stupid doctors, stupid accountants, stupid architects, stupid engineers? After all, it seems that the goal of people like Mr. Coats is to have the halls of justice come crashing down on our heads. When that happens we would want bad doctors to botch our emergency care so that we could go to court represented by a stupid lawyer for a damage settlement that would then be lost to arithmetic errors made by an accountant who can't count.