For the record: There is an impressive amount of Ivy League screwups.
Also for the record: No one has asked my opinion on the nomination of Harriet Miers. Not that I haven't offered.
As we lurch through the latest round of umbrage, it's important to remind ourselves that when John Roberts was nominated, liberals were complaining that they just didn't know enough about him and his "views" to make a decision on him. Interestingly, when the moment came, it wasn't that difficult for minds to be made up. Conservatives kept pointing out what Roberts was and was not obligated to disclose about his personal philosophy.
Now, the roles have reversed somewhat and conservatives began by demanding to know exactly what Harriet Miers believes. That tack was too absurd, so now those who wanted a more reliable choice for the Supreme Court are wringing their hands because Harry Ried isn't angry.
There is much to be amused by as we get set for the next constitutional rumble.
Michael Ledeen said it best yesterday:
Does anyone in the general rant know much of anythng about Miers as an intellect? About her core beliefs, if indeed she has any? I don't think so. She may be a drooling idiot, or a scintillating mind and personality, or just a boring mediocrity. Who knows? We don't, at least not yet. But we will. When we know, we're entitled to lecture one another, but not yet. Take it easy. I'm old enough to remember people screaming that the stupid haberdasher, Harry Truman, wasn't qualified to be president--surely George Will, on his current performance, would have agreed--and the same sort of people were thrilled that a real Harvard intellect, surrounded by other great Harvard intellects, had defeated the wretched Nixon for the presidency.
The criticism of Miers is coming from many constituencies, traumatized conservatives and outraged lawyers not the least of them. The penumbral imperative that a Supreme Court Justice be of impeccable legal intellect and judicial temperament strikes me as being just another attempt at elevating a profession to the level of prelacy.
Talent has something to do with it, of course, but education is not always a good predictor of success or intellect. Much of what we associate with a singular achievement can be attributed to a certain amount of interest and the leisure time and dedication necessary to study.
Ms Miers may turn out to be a dud, of course. She may dazzle the panel and set her critics to silence. The only sure thing is that the upcoming hearings are likely to be among the most watched in recent memory, which is good. I am working diligently to curb a rising suspicion that this president is adrift without a sail, but for this moment it would be bets, I think for everybody to calm down and see what opens up. Giving Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt isn't tantamount to acceptance, it's just fair play.
The Senate will likely take its role more seriously with this pass and you can bet that there will be enough gotcha questions to keep us interested. We may even witness a hearing where time spent on questions and answers actually overcomes that wasted on Senatorial bloviating. That would be nice development.
For now, I am uncomfortable with Miers' religion, only because I'm uncomfortable with religion in general, and I am skeptical that she has never made her views on abortion known to a living soul. However, because the constitution charges the president with appointing justices and invests in the Senate the role of advise and consent, I tend to remain cautiously leaning toward Miers.
This isn't to say that I won't change my view as the portrait of Miers comes more into focus, or that I have made up my mind at all. And, lest it go unsaid, what I think means just about... nothing.
Ledeen is right that a measure of a cultured, intellectual person is the time between stimulus and response. Many conservative intellectuals have exposed themselves as being just as prone to knee-jerk hyperbole as the liberals they criticize.
Let's wait for the whole story. How hard is this?
Comments