Miers: Elitism
I still haven't completely come down one way or another on the Harriet Miers nomination.
I'm inclined to be disappointed; I had hoped for a Rogers Brown or a McConnell. This is the moment we conservatives have been waiting on since David Souter pulled off his prosthetic head to reveal he was really Abbie Hoffman.
Hugh Hewitt makes a semi-convincing case that Miers is not a disaster, that she has definite good points; that her lack of judicial experience can be a good thing (I didn't need Hugh to tell me that, but the reminder was nice), that her background with Bush is probably a good sign that she's not going to Souter us. His other point - that the Senate GOP caucus might not have the votes to overcome a filibuster - is up for debate (with my thesis being "Why not find out with a real conservative first? I mean, use your damn mandate, Mr. President!).
Her opponents, likewise, make some good points.
But while the points against Miers join with my disappointment at not getting a died-in-the-wool conservative to make me generally down on the nomination so far, there's point that Miers' opposition consistently makes, then tries to dodge.
You can not tell me that there's not a healthy slathering of elitism in the opposition.
This piece by Brendan Miniter distills not so much the tone of the opposition as of so much of the opposition's subtext. Miniter, as an intellectual exercise, compares the pedigrees of Miers and talk host and former Supreme Court clerk Laura Ingraham:
Miers's undergraduate education was completed at Southern Methodist University in Dallas in 1967. Ingraham graduated from Dartmouth College, in Hanover, New Hampshire. That's not to say an Ivy League education is a prerequisite for Supreme Court service. It's not. But as one of many details in one's background, a highly selective admissions process is not nothing.
It's not nothing?
What it is, is evidence that at age 15 or 16, someone or something got through to Laura Ingraham that prompted her to start playing the paper chase, to get Big Grades so she could get into a Big University with a Big Name. That is all a "highly selective admissions process" means in the life of a normally-formed adult; an early-formed ability to say, do, and score whatever is needed to get selected. I've known Ivy Leaguers; I've worked for them, competed against them for jobs (and won more than I lost), known them socially, filled in on their talk shows; being "selected" is much more a commentary on someone's application than on their intelligence or capacity to think, reason and learn.
How about life experience?:
Clerked for federal judge? Yes, Miers clerked for a U.S. District court judge Joe E. Estes in Dallas. Ingraham clerked for judge Ralph K. Winter on the second circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Clerked for U.S. Supreme Court? Miers did not, while Ingraham researched for Justice Clarence Thomas.
So Ingraham is marinaded in "the system"; Miers is not.
Sorry, Brendan. It's not something that's going to turn me against Miers.
The Supreme Court (really, much of the federal judiciary) today is a lot like the major media; both see themselves oracles, bodies of high priests of their order (interpretation of the law or passing on information, as the case may be); they have their own initiation rituals, they disdain accountability to anyone but themselves; they can't imagine anyone else doing their job.
Bloggers and the new media are starting to puncture the media's sense of exceptionalism; in a body where seven of the eight currently-sitting justices went to Harvard, Yale or both (and the other went to Northwestern and the U of Chicago), and several spent much of their careers as professors rather than lawyers (to say nothing of hoi-polloi citizens), perhaps it's time for someone to do the same for the SCOTUS. Perhaps the President should find a brilliant, conservative-enough trial lawyer who graduated from the U of New Mexico school of law, and has been practicing law ever since.
Is Miers that person? My jury is still out, as it were. But arguments based on Miers' undergraduate pedigree aren't going to sway this particular voter.
Posted by Mitch at
October 11, 2005 12:42 PM
| TrackBack
Good post Mitch, just a couple of other points.
One, Miers’ father passed away during her freshman year of college which may have put some pressure on her to stay a bit closer to home. I say this not to garner sympathy for her but to merely raise the point that people go to the schools they do for all sorts of reasons that don’t appear on a transcript.
Second, for a woman to get into a predominately male law school in the 1960’s is a bit different for a woman to get into a law school in the mid 1980’s or today (which are now predominately female in terms of enrollment).
Third, I think that part of the problem with trying to have this debate in the blogosphere is two fold. Despite the importance of bloggers (no really), most of this debate is being driven by the debate by others – the pols, pundits, and others who get people riled up for a living and a lot of us are responding to their arguments rather than the arguments being made by other bloggers which sometimes causes us to argue past each other.
Also when Miers was announced last week, there was a backlash against her nomination by a lot of lawbloggers (mainly profs) and there was a backlash against the backlash by a lot of practicing attorneys and people who *didn’t* go to a top 25 law school but resent the hell out of the implication that they would never be good enough to serve on the SCOTUS because they didn’t go to the “right school” despite having 30 plus years of experience. There are also some who think that the problem with the Court is that you have 9 egoists who give you 10 opinions on any subject which makes the idea of someone who comes to the court with more practical experience more than a bit appealing.
Me? I’m still undecided but wish people would chill and that we could focus on the nominee herself and the Court rather than what some pundit (blogger or MSM) has to say about her.
Posted by: Thorley Winston at October 11, 2005 02:19 PMI shudder to think there would be elitism on the highest court in America! Why any Joe or Jane Sixpack is up to mastering the intracacies of antitrust and patent law, to say nothing of the Fourth Amendment.
Elites are that way cause they're the best at what they do. Sure it might make a nice story if the Yankees hired some regular schlub as their No. 1 starter. But then they wouldn't be the Yankees. They'd be the Twins.
Posted by: angryclown at October 11, 2005 02:25 PMJanice Rogers Brown? Maybe, if she weren't LIVING A DOUBLE LIFE!
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/images/2006.jpg
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/coverv/61/214161_thumb.jpg
Posted by: angryclown at October 11, 2005 02:39 PMI'm trying to picture if this would be in the "Analogies" section of the LSATs:
"Yankees Bullpen is to Drunken Schlub:Supreme Court is to _____hight-test trial lawyer____"
Y'see where the analogy breaks down, Angry one?
Posted by: mitch at October 11, 2005 02:49 PMMy problem with the "elitist" defense of Miers is that:
A. It's insufficient to explain the breadth of the outrage. The lead critics making the charge link to a bunch of Ivy Leaguers to "prove" it, then ignore the rest of us shlubs with criticism of our own.
B. This is a novel redefinition of what Bush said he would deliver as a SCOTUS nominee when campaigning. "Elites" like Scalia and Thomas were the examples he offered on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Doug at October 11, 2005 03:58 PMI have no opinion on Miers, based upon her academic record, or that she has spent her career as a practicing corporate attorney. I do doubt that a lawyer whose most prominent client made his pile via eminent domain and direct taxpayer subsidy is going to be a justice who properly understands the meaning of "public use" specifically, or the the constitutional limits on state power generally.
Posted by: Will Allen at October 11, 2005 04:35 PMBesides, Vobo - in your rush to take a whack at all of down-market America, you completely missed the point; this isn't about populating the Supreme Court with cosmetologists. It's about making the SCOTUS something other than an Ivy League preserve.
Slash must be having an aneurism, huh?
Posted by: mitch at October 12, 2005 07:05 AMChad the Elder was kind enough to post a letter I sent him on the Fraters site. I addressed this point (among others). I think many people would share my analysis.
,
Posted by: nathan bissonette at October 12, 2005 08:55 AMWell.. maybe I didn't.. "go to an Ivy League law school".. I'm not.. "elite".. I don't.. "fit the mold".. I don't.. "understand the difference between the Constitution and a Bazooka Joe comic".. I'm not.. "qualified".. I'm not.. "attractive".. I don't.. "wear the latest clothes".. uh.. when I get up in the morning I don't.. "shower" or "brush my teeth"..
Posted by: angryclown at October 13, 2005 10:31 AMEveryone someone says "SCOTUS", I think "Scrotum".
I hate it when that happens.
Posted by: Val at October 13, 2005 04:15 PMI couldn't agree more.
Posted by: Sean at October 30, 2005 05:46 AM
Posted by: Seka Aleksic at May 6, 2006 08:16 AMPlavuse Seka Aleksic Jebanje Seka Aleksic Karanje Seka Aleksic Porno Seka Aleksic Gola