First, it’s worth pointing out that nomination to the Supreme Court is not, and should not be, reserved for the very best lawyer in the country (one need not even be a lawyer), or the smartest person, or the most distinguished person. And, second, it may be worth remembering the immortal words of Sen. Roman Hruska (R, Neb.), as quoted recently by Jack Balkin, when confronted with one of President Nixon’s mediocre nominees:
Senator Roman Hruska, a conservative politician from Nebraska, attempted to turn this into an asset: “Even if he is mediocre,” Hruska contended, “there are a lot of mediocre judges and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there.”
Moreover, there’s no reason to suspect, at this point, that Ms. Miers is mediocre. She’s certainly not the most distinguished choice available, but by all accounts she’s a fine lawyer, well-known to the president. Etc.
I will leave it to others to hash over her qualifications, or lack of them, and to the Democrats to sniff over her presumably non-existent paper trail. What strikes me is that she is the logical, even the inevitable, culmination of the combination of intense partisanship and “diversity” mania.
The Democrats made it abundantly clear that they would lie down on the tracks of the nomination of any minority nominee, no matter how “qualified” in traditional terms, whom they could identify as a conservative — or, as they demonstrated with Miguel Estrada, whom they couldn’t really identify but nevertheless had a strong suspicion. And they also, joined now by some Republicans, would have howled in protest if the president had nominated virtually any “white male,” no matter how distinguished. Do you really think they would have rolled over for a Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson, or Michael McConnell? In my view any one of these men, and several others, are every bit as distinguished and qualified as John Roberts, but they all have the albatross of clear records that would have provided targets to the Democrats.
Thus the only way for the president to avoid a bruising, bitter, nasty, time-consuming fight was to nominate a “woman or minority” (again, fungible) with no record regarding controversial issues. And the only way he could avoid another Souter was by appointing someone whom he knows very well, a crony if you will.
Am I disappointed? Yes. Do I believe he should have appointed a more distinguished person and fought for him or her? Yes. Do I believe he demonstrated a lack of character or courage in dodging that fight? Yes.
But when you add the Democrats’ promise of protracted struggle over any identifiable conservative with the demand for “diversity,” you get … Harriet Miers.
Partisanship + “Diversity” = cronyism.
UPDATE
Paul at Powerline makes most of my point:
This nominee is a two-fer — she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony.
I would add only what I’ve already said above — that the president (and, in the future, other presidents) picking “a woman or a minority” whose views only he knows because she or he has no substantial record to serve as a target for the opposition is an all but inevitable result of the combined pressures of intense partisanship and shrill “diversity”-mongering.
“What strikes me is that she is the logical, even the inevitable, culmination of the combination of intense partisanship and “diversity” mania.”
I like how your example of ‘intense partisanship’ lays the blame on democrats. The president could nominate a woman in the mold of ginsburg, but he doesn’t because he’ll lay on the tracks to stop that.
Is there anything left in politics that the dems aren’t to be blamed for? They are now to blame for Bush’s SCOTUS nominees? I can’t stop laughing.
John, I think cronyism existed way before diversity did.
As to Miers, I’ll keep an open mind and hope for the best.
Laura – Of course cronyism existed before diversity. I think “diversity,” as it is now preached and practiced, is bad, but I certainly don’t think it is the source of all evil.
I think the extreme partisanship of the moment creates pressure to select nominees with thin or obscure records. The desire to avoid another Souter creates pressure to nominate someone well-known by the president (a crony, if you don’t like the selection). And the clamor for “diversity” creates pressure to select “a woman or minority.” So, Ms. Miers, whatever her actual talents, is the classic nominee in our present circumstances.
Yes, cronyism did exist before it, and the Civil Rights Act and original-intent “affirmative action” forcing outreach to ALL was well on its way to helping whittle it down.
Then along came diversity, a perserse form of official, institutionalized political cronyism. Take for example the argument that race preferences are needed to “balance against white cronyism” or the historical impacts of disparity, which, is, in effect the real reason for their support. The idea is to balance one form of cronyism with more cronyism – preferences for the “rich” (white) are balanced with preferences for minorities. Obviously, the real losers here are the poor, non-minorities.
Actus, why would you expect or demand a conservative President to pick someone in the “mold of Ginsburg.” Speak about “intense partisianship.” The Republicans didn’t obstruct either Clinton nominee, although I think John would agree, and I’ll certainly admit, that Republicans have been guilty of their own indiscretions on “intense partisianship.”
And it looks like John spreads the “blame” around a bit: “And they also, joined now by some Republicans,…”
“So, Ms. Miers, whatever her actual talents, is the classic nominee in our present circumstances.”
And following such an unclassical one too.
It used to be common for non-judges to be nominated to the Supreme Court, e.g. Rehnquist, Powell, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Douglas, White, R. Jackson, Goldberg, Hugo Black, and of course Abe Fortas, who all had little or no prior judicial experience. I am not necessarily a fan of each and every one, but that none of them were qualified seems a stretch. Robert Jackson, for instance, neither finished law school nor had prior judicial service and is nonetheless held in high regard nearly universally.
I can also think of plenty of non-judges who would make great Justices today — Ted Olsen comes to mind, or maybe Miguel Estrada — and whether Ms. Miers is one of them remains to be seen, but I wouldn’t dismiss her only for the reason that “she’s just a lawyer.”
Mieserable: Partisanship+Diversity>Cronyism
Mieserable: Partisanship+Diversity>Cronyism