This Is Not Your Father's Cronyism.

As pointed out by Jack in the comments, Marshall Wittman chalks up the Miers nomination to Bush cronyism. It is no secret that his administration is in love with itself and its friends, and I can be persuaded that installing a lifelong toady to the Supreme Court (which is a life-long appointment) is worse than putting one's buddies in charge of, say FEMA. Indeed, in Federalist Paper No. 76 Hamilton sees the role of the Senate as one of guarding against cronyism:

It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

There is some reason in the Moose's opinion that the Miers nomination is a sign of weakness and can cause a split in the GOP. Personally, I would like to see the Republican Party purge itself from the radical right, just as I would be thrilled to see Democrats denounced the far leftist branch that now holds that once great party by the gonads. However, Democrats should not at least appear to be so delighted at the malaise in the GOP, as soon enough, it will be time for donkey leadership to pay the mortgage from MoveOn.org.

While we're on the subject, let us not forget that the Bush Administration did not invent cronyism. Hillary Clinton in charge of Heath Care or Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General snap immediately to mind. Or what about Harry and Linda Thomason and Web Hubbell? My point isn't to use Clinton's cronyism to excuse Bush's. I don't. And this administration has shown that it values loyalty above all else, which is a dangerous thing for a democratic government to embrace.

Now, Miers may turn up to be a hollow nominee. I do find it interesting that the right wing is getting itself into a lather so quickly and Bush may have to align himself with the Democrats on this, which will essentially hasten lame-duckness. This has the smell of deal all over it. In a mind-bending twist this nomination could cause the Right to start leveling charges of cronyism against its leaders.

What I don't understand, and I am willing to concede that my lack of understanding is due to my lack of education in the Law, is what makes one person a "brilliant legal mind" while another will merely do? Robert Bork is said to possess a high intellect and an encyclopedic knowledge of the law. What good did that do him? If superior intellect is the prerequisite, why not have only Nobel Laureates (no Peace Price Winners) sit on the bench?

The truth is, we don't really care all that much about judicial brilliance, as long as the nominee's ideology meshes nicely with ours. So I am certain that the right would be happy with a pro-life dolt, while the left would be just fine if Miers turns out to be a relative lightweight yet votes to uphold Roe.

What's driving everybody nuts now is that Bush has exposed himself finally and fully to not be all that conservative (he may not even be clear on the concept) and neither side knows what to do about it. And the once-vaunted White House machine is throwing rods left and right and in sore need of an overhaul.

Not a very good time to be fiddling with the Supreme Court.

AND ANOTHER THING: Herry Reid says he "likes" Miers. This could be a way to tear at the heart of the Republican base, but it can easily be picked apart, too. Why would Reid give Miers a pass when he was so adamant about Roberts' lack of judicial experience, and the fact that he "just didn't know enough" about the nominee? What, now that's all out the window?

Hey Jack, where's Calvinball?

Comments

[Jack]

Reid and his fellow-travelers were in serious consideration for the first Newsmaker Calvinball Play of the Week with their votes against Roberts, who was indeed qualified and showed no signs of being a mindless ideologue.

But, both the ridicule of President Bush in calling for conservation of fuel (a day late and a dollar short, but he did finally do so) by those who criticized the energy bill for *not* promoting conservation, along with the incredible play by Tom DeLay, both pushed Reid and his impotent, posturing colleagues aside.

However, this new development may qualify Reid and his followers for the *second* Newsmaker Calvinball Play of the Week!

[Vavoom]

A Nobel Prize hardly indicates a brilliant mind, I can promise you that. You're completely right -- brilliance has little to do with the nomination and subsequent confirmation of a justice. Yes, it's all about ideological alignment. I find that approach rather pathetic.

[Maggie]

How much of a crony is she if she donated to the Al Gore campaign?

[Vavoom]

C'mon, Maggie... that was 1988. I think her years of service to W far outweigh donations made to Gore in '88.

[Dave Schuler]

Most of the criticism I've seen boils down to that both conservatives and libertarians are unhappy with the nomination.

Point 1) No single nomination will make both conservatives and libertarians happy.

Point 2) GWB is not now and never has been either a conservative or a libertarian (any more than Clinton was a liberal—a point that still seems to be lost on both liberal Democrats and Clinton-hating Republicans).

Point 3) I'm not too unhappy that the bomb-throwers are unhappy. Good governance is a positive good and part of good governance is not burning the damned house down.

Point 4) Call it cronyism or what you like but this is an appointment with which Bush is without doubt comfortable. We may not know what Justice-designate Miers will do but GWB thinks he does.

I continue to think that Ann Althouse has given the best advice: wait and see.