No, not a new Batman villian, but rather an “argument” I am tired of hearing.
I keep hearing or reading the charge that the reason many have objected to Harriet Miers is because there is a pro-Ivy League Bias (i.e., that a bunch of East Coast Conservatives are so biased towards wanting grads for Yale, Harvard, and maybe Stanford) that ungirds the objection to Miers.
First: would someone please find me an actual example of someone making such an argument? I don’t think you will find any.
Second: this is a distraction (as is the “sexism” charge). The point when it comes to Miers’ qualifications isn’t about where she went to school, it’s about her multidecade career which is bereft of any serious consideration of constitutional issues and the fact that the the most significant line on her resume is that she was Bush’s lawyer and that she worked in the Bush White House.
Enough with the Ivy League business.
Update: Reader Terry notes in the comments that Ann Coulter brought up SMU. Fair enough. I set myself up by making an absolute challenge. I would publicly amend my statement above to be “you won’t find many” and that the serious critics (and I don’t consider Coulter to be a serious critics of much of anything) are hardly basing their arguments upon where the woman went to law school.
Sphere: Related Content
October 11th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Steven - Why should the Constitution require a genius to interpret it?
October 11th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
A) Did I say that it did?
B) Still, the concept that the President shouldn’t try to appoint the best and brightest to the Court makes no sense to me. And it is mightily difficult to argue that Harriet Miers is the best and most qualified person that the President could find.
October 11th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Waal, I am beginning to like her for two primary reasons.
First, it seems that all of those who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted so as to increase the power of the executive branch (and provide judicial cover for expanding the imperial presidency) all seem to hate her. I mean people like Kristol, Frum, Krauthammer, et al. If they don’t like her, then, from a Southern perspective–a perspective that is concerned about restoring checks on Leviathan–she might not be all that bad.
And second, I like th fact that she isn’t from the best schools or the elite legal class. Who cares if she is not of the right pedigree? Why can’t–why shouldn’t–the Constitution be interpreted by a reasonably intelligent citizen?
I think that much of the grinding of teeth you are hearing is coming from people who are aghast that someone from Harvard or Yale was overlooked for someone from SMU. We should ignore them and be take heart that someone from outside the approved mold can still be chosen for such a position.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
“First: would someone please find me an actual example of someone making such an argument? I don’t think you will find any.”
Too, too easy.
http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
LOL!
October 12th, 2005 at 2:03 am
What happened DOC? You got your actual example… How’s the strawman doing?
October 12th, 2005 at 6:19 am
Gee whiz, Snitch, I don’t live on the computer 24/7.
Fair enough on Coulter (touche, Terry), although I ust confess, I don’t her take seriously. And I will confess to overplaying my hand by making such an absolutist challenge. Perhaps I should have delimited my challenge to serious critics such as Bork, Will, Krauthammer, Bainbridge, Althouse, myself, and a raft of other critics.
Really if i amend my sentence to “you won’t find many.”
The bottom line is, and this is irrefutable, despite what keeps being said (and is echoed above by John), the objections to Miers are not founded is where she did, or did not, go to school.
I will be happy to make a post listing those who have made that argument in a post, if you all want to bring me the info. And we can then look at the quality of theose crtics as we evaluate exactly how much the Ivy League bias business really does form the core of the anit-Miers argument in substantial fashion.
October 12th, 2005 at 11:11 am
We have to ask ourselves the question Was she on any short lists for appointment to a lower court with the batch of others cited as being on the “deep” bench? I’ll speculate that she was. That raises the question Why wasn’t she appointed to a lower court in the time frame her cohort was? I speculate that she was too valuable in service to the Cause to be sent up and not because she was less qualified or gifted, but because she just may well be the most qualified and gifted. That being the case, admittedly on slim evidence, W will become known as Mr. October and she the October Surprise!
R/
October 12th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Sorry, fella, but Althouse (since you brought her name up) disagrees with your position too: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/10/mellowing-on-miers.html
Of course, if you say your statements are irrefutable and the quality of people who agree with you superior to those who do not, who are we to disagree?
October 12th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
I think you need to read Althouse more carefully.
She does not disagree with my position, she is “mellowing”.
And no, my argument is not that the quality of my allies is so good, although I think some are quite noteworthy, the arguments rise and fall on their own merits.
What, pray tell, is the argument for Miers? I have yet to hear one.
October 12th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
“Fair enough on Coulter (touche, Terry), although I ust confess, I don’t her take seriously.”
Neither do I, actually. She’s a bombthrower. The bad thing about bombthrowers is that, over time, people get used to the noise and just ignore it, forcing you to use bigger and bigger bombs.
Eventually, you’re gonna make a mistake and just blow yourself up. Coulter is rapidly approaching that point.