A Court for the Common Man
The only major Miers development today isn’t that original. Robert Bork has an op-ed in the WSJ that rehashes the major objections to the nomination and Bush’s underlying weakness. Like John Podhoretz, I find it to be a little “intemperate.” The revealing commentary comes from Jonah Goldberg:
What is remarkable about the Miers nomination is that the pro-Miers side managed to define the debate as one between elitists and “heartlanders” or some similar nonsense first. There was no way that anyone could say NR, the Weekly Standard, the Federalist Society, Bork, George Will and Krauthammer were somehow collectively of insufficient conservative authenticity, especially when the defenders — with some exceptions — do tend to be more moderate or, as the Judge says, lukewarm. Hugh Hewitt, for example, is famously dismissive of ideological conservatism preferring to talk about Republicans versus Democrats, not liberals versus conservatives.
I actually think this is a profoundly significant signal in the ongoing — and at times somewhat lamentable — transformation of the GOP into a populist party . . . I think this new “elites” versus “heartlanders” trend is only going to grow within the ranks of the GOP. I can’t say it’s all bad or all good. But it is a major sociological change if the arguments within conservatism are now going to be about “loyalty” to our people (trans: our Party) instead of loyalty to our ideas.
Indeed, as I have noted here before, there is a growing divide between the populists and the ‘elite’ among the American Right. And also like Jonah, I’m apprehensive about the effects of this divide on the political landscape.
But the nomination of Harriet Miers goes beyond, or should go beyond, mere politics, as the Supreme Court has a lofty role. George Bush’s crude decision to name a stealth crony has been lamented as a perversion of what the process should be. Miers is a populist pick, but the Supreme Court is not a populist institution, or at least isn’t designed to be. This is something many of Miers’ supporters ignore or implicitly dispute. For example, a White House insider contacted ConfirmThem.com, “He says that having someone with practical experience on the bench will resonate with the average American.” Similar lines of argument point out that she has “real world experience” and isn’t of the “judicial priesthood” (another nonsensical populist cliche) as justifications for her appointment.
One could argue that her real world experience isn’t all that impressive (here and here), but that only takes the bait that we should accept or reject her based upon a populist premise. Bush and his supporters are letting populism bleed into the judiciary via Miers, and it is right, necessary, and imperative for the elites and their supporters to oppose that.
7 Responses to “A Court for the Common Man”
I’m confused. For years on end, conservatives claimed that America’s greatest problem was that it was run by intellectuals and elitists. Now many conservatives object because Miers isn’t sufficiently intellectual or elitist?
I guess you could say we were opposed to the wrong kind of elitists.
Whenever the politicians begin to babble about the “common man”, I laugh at them. Then I check to make sure my wallet is still there. I can’t imagine why anyone takes this pseudo-populist rhetoric with any seriousness at all. I’ve met thousands of the “common man” (and woman) in my lifetime. The vast majority of them were indistinguishable from one another and comprised of about equal parts ignorance, mediocrity and credulity. The last thing I want is a Supreme Court that thinks like the common man.
And it’s the last thing the founding fathers wanted, certainly. If you read Federalist 78 and the other defenses of the judiciary, you see that they wanted justices picked from the best and the brightest, confirmed by the un-democratic Senate (the Senate was not popularly elected originally under the Constitution and remained so until 1913), and given lifetime tenure precisely in order to make them independent of political considerations (i.e. the need to pander to the “common man” lest they band together and vote him out of office).
And then there are probably those pseudo-intellectual bloggers who are legends in their own minds.
Robert McNamara was one of the “best and brightest” but was so lacking in common sense, decency and sense of humanity as to push a senseless war.
I would support the idea of trying to obtain bright, even brilliant legal minds for the courts, but once people so massively engage in dismissal of common people as ignorant and mediocre then I am sure that they themselves are someone I’d rather not meet. My grandfather the plumber wasn’t qualified to sit on the court, but he was neither ignorant nor mediocre.
Joel Thomas wrote:
Meow.
I don’t think anyone suggested that no smart person ever does anything dumb or immoral. I surely didn’t. It has nothing to do with the argument being made.
Nor was my construction safety man father, who has been my greatest intellectual influence and is one of the smartest and best educated people I know. And to that extent, I would argue, he is quite uncommon. What I said has little to do with social class or some blue collar/white collar distinction, so let’s not pretend that I insulted your grandfather, for crying out loud. I didn’t dismiss common people as ignorant and credulous, I dismissed the ignorant and credulous and noted that ignorance and credulity are more common than their opposite. That’s tragic, but I suspect it’s also been true of every culture throughout human history.
I could easily go through the list of tests and surveys that show what staggering portions of our population don’t know to prove my point, but I’m sure you’ve seen them all too. A sizable percentage of the population are not only ignorant, they revel in their ignorance. And it has nothing to do with whether they have a degree (I don’t have one myself) or what kind of job they do. I have known very intelligent, interesting and educated people in every conceivable line of work, from PhD scientists to accountants to ministers to roofers. The fact that they are intelligent, interesting and educated is precisely what makes them uncommon.
The ignorant and the credulous will almost always be in blue collar or low level service jobs. Those in blue collar or low level service jobs will not always be ignorant and credulous. It’s a logic and sets thing. There aren’t enough upper level jobs for those who could qualify for them if they wanted them given that the structure of virtually all businesses is a pyramid (or triangle if you prefer). Ever looked at typical business org charts that track personnel?
I have nothing against non-Ivy league schools, “real world”, experience, etc. But I do have something against no training, practice or experience, “real world” or otherwise, in the specific area needed. I would gladly take my son or daughter to a doctor who graduated from Small Med U and is an excellent pediatrician; I would not let them within a hundred miles of me for brain surgery.
Miers’ skill and experience, whatever they may be, are simply not what is needed for the SCOTUS.