Elitism and sexism and nepotism, oh my!

I haven’t yet said much about the Harriet Miers nomination for the Supreme Court, as I was hoping to wait and see how her confirmation hearings panned out. But since the White House has decided this week to ‘re-launch’ her nomination — that is to say, put more spin on it — I thought this was as good of a time as any to give my $0.02.

First off, unless Harriet Miers has, in the last two weeks, suddenly become a top-tier graduate of a top-tier law school, gotten extensive judicial experience, or has become an expert in Constitutional Law — this ‘re-launching’ is going to be not only fruitless, but pointless.

Now, that isn’t to say that Ms. Miers would have to possess all of these things to sit on the court, but at least ONE would be nice. Chief Justice Rehnquist did not have extensive judicial experience, but he graduated at the top of his law class at Stanford and served as a law clerk for a Justice Robert Jackson. If Harriet Miers had any such experience, there would be much less of an uproar...but she doesn't.

I’ve heard many people argue that maybe it’s time for people who don’t have an Ivy League education or an elite background to have some representation on the Supreme Court. No, no it’s not. That’s stupid. The Supreme Court is not a representative branch of government. If you want to be represented by a blue collar, academically mediocre person, vote for one. The Supreme Court, however, is meant to be a group of egghead pencil pushers locked in a room arguing over the intricacies of Constitutional Law. Some people might call this opinion elitist. To them I say: Yes it is. That’s what the Supreme Court is for.

After the onslaught of criticisms of Miers’ academic accomplishments (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) advocates of the Bush administration sought to inoculate further criticisms, first by vouching for her conservatism. Saying that, if nothing else, ‘she’ll vote the right way.’ Ok, so she’ll vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Whopee. But what about all the other obscure cases that no one hears about? Or the other monumental cases that haven’t yet been brought before the court? This is a lifetime appointment, after all. Odds are, issues other than abortion will come before the court.

If all President Bush wanted was someone to vote with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, he could’ve nominated me. I’ve got the same judicial and Constitutional Law experience as Harriet Miers (which is none) and I’ve even got longer paper trail so as to assure conservatives that I too am a conservative.

When Bush’s conservative base didn’t seem to be calmed by the assurance that Harriet Miers is ‘one of us,’ he trotted the First Lady out to accuse Miers’ critics of sexism. Now, Mrs. Bush, I’m a big fan of yours and have a great deal of respect for you, but don’t insult my intelligence.

I've not heard one critic oppose the Miers nomination on the basis of her being a woman. Contrary to what some liberals would have us believe, we have not regressed to 1910 during the Bush administration. As I recall, conservatives have been the ones calling for appointments based on merit rather than 'affirmative action' quotas.

If anyone is being sexist, it’s those touting Ms. Miers for being the ‘first woman’ to be the head of the Texas Bar Association and ‘the first woman’ to be the head of the Texas lottery. If President Bush had nominated the former head of the Texas Bar association, the former head of the Texas lottery and his personal lawyer — whose name was Henry Miers instead of Harriet Miers — the nomination would have been more laughable than it already is. Simply because Ms. Miers’ lacks a Y chromosome, that should make her accomplishments more impressive? Is that not patronizing to women? Even more patronizing is the fact that plenty of more qualified women — Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Clement, just to name a few — were passed over for the mediocrity of the President’s buddy.

Democrats and liberals (pardon the redundancy) have been gleeful over the ‘split’ between conservatives over the Miers nomination, but what the Miers nomination has actually exposed is the rift between ‘Establishment conservatives’ — or those that will abandon the cause in order to put one of your friends on the court — and ‘Movement Conservatives,’ or those that will not tolerate the abandonment of the cause and will rebel against the ‘Establishment’ when it happens.

The President may not be so popular amongst true conservatives at the moment, but that makes little difference, as he is not up for reelection. But it seems that liberals are mistaking disunity with the President for disunity within the conservative movement, and that simply isn’t the case. Conservatives are more united than they’ve been in a long time, say, since the 1970’s. And we all know what happened after that.

Which is why, I believe, the administration can repackage the Miers nomination all they want, but conservatives aren't going to be any more supportive without empirical evidence that they should be. Viva la Reagan Revolucion.









On a bit of a side note, I think the White House’s campaign to prove Harriet Miers’ conservative credentials and her propensity to overturn Roe v. Wade could actually end up backfiring. Couple the ire that is sure to draw from the left with the already existing ire of conservatives, and Harriet Miers could very well not be confirmed.