Why would I want to tank the Miers nomination?
Re: my previous post. Do I want the Miers nomination to be tanked? I'm afraid that the answer is, yes.
For me, the issue is not about conservatism, per se. Indeed, I find myself in frequent disagreement with social conservatives on issues such as federalism and the power of the state to regulate consensual conduct. Smart guys like Hugh Hewitt care a lot more about social conservatism, and that may be why he is being much more positive about this nomination. But I don't care if she's 90 degrees to the right of Attila the Hun.
To me, this is about whether a nominee to the highest court in the land has the kinds of qualifications that we would want in a person holding that position. As a practicing lawyer, I find it demoralizing to think that someone who wasn't even on law review at a second-tier school, and who has no record of scholarship or practice in constitutional law, might soon be in a position to opine on such crucial matters. And that's why it strikes me as unbecoming of Bush to have made such an appointment.
UPDATE: Linked by Captain Ed! Heck, I remember two years ago when Ed and I were blog babies. Ed has applied himself much more than I have, and gone on to great things.
On the subject at hand, will I regret this post, and the ones before it, in the morning? Yeah, maybe. As a member of the Bar, I should probably be expressing greater magnanimity, or something, in respect of someone who may be sitting on the highest court in the land by the end of the year.
But I'm probably not the first Bush supporter to be driven into a fit of pique at his sometimes inexplicable actions.
MORE: In the clear light of day, my feelings haven't changed. Randy Barnett, who would have been on my short list of SCOTUS nominees, says it all.
Gee, I know several practicing attorneys, none law review types, none graduates of top tier (read "Ivy League")law schools, none appellate judges, but all of which have far more common sense than most of the Supreme Court justices put together!
What elitist crap to think that all "wisdom" resides in the hallowed halls of the NE Corridor! After all, those big-brained boys and girls got us in a heap of trouble in the first instance and I've seen precious little to indicate their successors will provide any practical relief from the affliction of "law review-itis"!
Posted by: Earl T | October 04, 2005 at 12:23 AM
Earl: A valid point. But my concern is that whether or not conservative ideals are promoted in the Court's decision-making, those ideals must be supported by sound legal reasoning. It would therefore be helpful if we had some track record of Miers' ability in this regard. From what I've seen to date, we do not.
Posted by: SWLiP | October 04, 2005 at 08:46 AM
Gee, calm down. Go read Beldar - http://beldar.blogs.com. Your comment about "not being on law review" appears to be wrong - she was editor at one point. Also, if you're just going by credentials, Souter has better "credentials", yet I don't imagine you'd support him.
Posted by: Jonathan | October 04, 2005 at 01:01 PM