Posted on 10/10/2005 8:50:14 AM PDT by jcb8199
The conservative punditocracy is spittin' mad at the President for nominating Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. I've never seen anything like it --- rioting pundits! Ranting constitutionalists! All the big names, it seems, are agin' Ms. Miers in a unified towering rage. We've learned to expect this sort of outburst from Ted Kennedy and Moveon.org, but not the level-headed thinkers of the Right.
In fact, what's really going on may resemble the rantings of the Left. It has the same quality of narcissistic entitlement. We know that Ted Kennedy always felt entitled to be President, and is still enraged at his own failure every time he denounces George W. Bush. We know Moveon.org believes with passionate intensity that it is the vanguard of the working class, or the feminist movement, or the gay rights coalition, or some other self-satisfied group of narcissists who know with all the certainty of divine revelation that they are the answer to all our problems. It is disappointing, to say the least, to see the conservative elite reacting in the same overwrought way to its sense of lost power in the Harriet Miers case.
The elite of conservative opinion feels entitled to control President Bush's Supreme Court nominations. In their minds they own the short list of candidates, because they have worked and slaved and argued for a true conservative jurisprudence for three decades. Well, bless them for their dedication to a good cause. But who elected them? Last time I looked, the Constitution gives the power of nomination to Presidents, with "advice and consent" to the Senate. None of the pundits have won an election.
In fact, every single conservative commentator owes his or her success to somebody's intuitive judgment. George Will owes his influence not just to his talent and insight, formidable as they are. He owes his job to Katharine Graham, or whoever else it was at the Washington Post that made the decision to hire and keep him. And their decision was outstanding, even though they could not predict the future George Will any more than we can predict the future John Roberts or Harriet Miers.
How do I know this? Having sat on my share of graduate admissions committees, I know darned well that no one can predict, based on GRE scores, recommendations, essays, or any other known bit of information, who will succeed in graduate school and who will not. That question has been studied for a century since Alfred Binet created the first IQ test, and we still don't know how to do it. Even less can we predict who will make a wonderful scholar after graduate school, or who will make a great lawyer or judge. This is a simple statistical fact: At the upper end of the distribution there are no provable differences between talented people.
If we can't do that in the case of admissions to competitive graduate schools, how likely is it that we can do it at the Supreme Court level, several career leaps beyond any graduate school? Maybe John Roberts is one nose ahead of Harriet Miers in the statistical horse race. I'll bet that on any objective measure of intelligence or achievement the difference is statistically close to zero.
What we do know is that lifelong habits and beliefs predict future actions. Harriet Miers directed the reviews of all of George W. Bush's judicial appointments. If we want to guess at the future, we cannot do better than to look at all those appointments, and ask, "What kind of woman would vet so many judges with a consistent judicial philosophy and habit of mind? How likely is that to shape her view of future Supreme Court cases?"
I'm sorry to say that my heroes, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and my heroines like Ann Coulter are now committing exactly the same rationalistic fallacy for which they justly criticize the Left. They believe they know the answer, when in fact they have merely fallen in love with their own intellectual image.
James Lewis is a frequent contributor.
Oh, very good. Yes, the smartest way to approach pissed off people is to insult them. That's gonna have a unifying effect.
When the answers to the questions are not good, attack the questioners in lieu of supplying answers.
"I'm sorry to say that my heroes, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and my heroines like Ann Coulter are now committing exactly the same rationalistic fallacy for which they justly criticize the Left. They believe they know the answer, when in fact they have merely fallen in love with their own intellectual image."
You know, it's kind of funny.
The charges of 'elitism' didn't start until the the white house meeting...it was their 'message' to squelch criticism of miers.
Charging 'elitism' and 'sexism' to make your critics shut up is a tactic of the left. That is what the party leaders are engaging in now.
" Well, bless them for their dedication to a good cause. But who elected them?"
Most of us aren't elected and we still have strong opinions. Should we just shut down FR?
"
Charging 'elitism' and 'sexism' to make your critics shut up is a tactic of the left. That is what the party leaders are engaging in now.
"
100% true. Rather than engage in a legitimate debate the white house is going to a liberal smear game.
If it were just George Will he might have a point -- or just one of the others. Collectively they have more power and dismissing them with a pack of cheap shots will only make the problem worse.
I must take issue with Lewis on this one. The reason the conservative punditocracy is up in arms is not because the president failed to kiss their collective rings but the fact that Miers has no solid track record of upholding conservative constitutional principles. It is just not enough to say she has all the right ideas--trust me. If she doesn't have a record of standing up for them and the intellectual wattage to explain her beliefs. She might say all right things at her confirmation hearing but that is no guarantee she might not "evolve" or "grow" on the bench over the next twenty or so years like so many others have.
I have read too many good editorials on the temptations to see this lifetime appointment as an unassailable throne of philosopher-kingship and the opportunity to play god.
Miers may well be on the high court for years after W's presidency is a historical footnote. Her personal loyalty to him cuts no ice with me. A good justice's loyalty must be to the constitution of the united states of america and the principles of the founders, not to any president or political party.
Um, there is a difference, Mr. Author. If you fail in grad school, the school suffers minor harm, and most of the harm is to the student who wasted time and possibly money. If you fail as Supreme Court judge, the results can be catastrophic and long-term. The more I learn about Meiers, the more worried I get. Having her read her quotes disdainful of the Federalist Society and her apparent apparent defense of the ABA, it strikes me that she may be more obsessed with her career than with the law. Also, as a lawyer I know that career-minded lawyers are often the types who avoid political controversy, but hold strong grudges when they feel personally affronted. This means that there is the potential that she could be the worst case scenario: unprincipled AND ready to strike back at those conservatives who have questioned her nomination.
I'm not going to call Miers supporters any names. We're having a debate here, and we shouldn't stoop to using the tactics of the party we oppose. Leave those tactics to Howard Dean.
Better question would be "Why do you think electing someone makes them an expert on anything?" I trust a george Will or W. Buckley over a lot of republicans. They are not as driven by political considerations, and are more free to be independent and honest.
I agree. In a constitutional republic this job is given to the President and the Senate. The only legitimate powers of election have already been exercised. It is best to think of oneself as an interested observer when watching what goes on in Washington. I, for one, want it to unfold as laid out, without a lot of unconstitutional pressure politics.
I think the point is that the person who is entitled to make the nomination is the one who was ELECTED. George Bush was ELECTED and George Will et all were NOT. They may have contributed to his election, but it took the votes of 52,000,000+ people to put him office and whether they like it or not, they do not speak for all 52,000,000+ people.
It looks to me like way too many media conservatives have missed the wink-and-nod here. If they want to be pissed, be pissed at the Senate Republicans. They are the ones who will cry uncle as soon as they feel a little heat from the left. Specifically, let's blame the "Gang of Seven" for preventing us from ending this judicial filibuster nonsense. As usual, Republicans are the only ones who can beat Republicans. It's the friendly-fire syndrome.
George Will is elected every day by the people who pay money to read him.
BTTT
"Who Elected George Will?"
So only elected people are entitled to express an opinion? Unlike liberals, conservatives (with some exceptions on FR) are not mindless drones wo simply parrot the party line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.