The Attacks on The Harriet Meirs Nomination Are Already Starting to Get Old

The complaints about the President's pick are beginning to look like elitist whining. Yes, most of us conservatives (including this blogger) wanted Bush to appoint a conservative legal titan. He did not. We can't change that now. Before anyone in the right makes a bigger dummy of himself or herself, let's see what the hearings produce. (This is a message I hope David Frum, Ann Coulter, Rich Lowry, George Will, and their fellow outraged conservative pundits will accept from someplace.)

There is, of course, another route to take: Conservatives can actively oppose the Miers nomination. If that's what you want to do, go ahead, join the ranks of the Buchanan Brigade. Just don't let the door hit you on the way out. From Betsy's Page:

What does irritate me is those conservatives who basically want to take their marbles and go home since they're disappointed in Bush's nomination. Fine, stay home next election. I hope your sanctimonious conservative purity is warm comfort through the years of Hillary's presidency. Remember that our choice is rarely between the perfect candidate and some other person. Mostly, we have to deal with two imperfect candidates and figure out which one would be less bad for the country. If you're lucky, there might even be a candidate you can like. My experience is that such politicians are rare.

(HT: Hugh Hewitt. Betsy has lots of good stuff; read it.)

So Miers was not a judge before. Even Power Line won't get over this one. Note: Rehnquist was never a judge. Nor was he a legal scholar. Enough said.

Brit Hume noted last night the strain of elitism that runs through the heavy-duty conservative opposition to Miers, the non-titan. This obviously stung; see Power Line again, who rushed to its own defense. It is true that most of the leading conservative intellectual lights (some named above) who are apopleptic about Miers have Ivy League backgrounds. Elitism - how unbecoming to a conservative! Watch for Laura Ingraham and others to defend themselves today against Brit's good-natured observation.

As a graduate of a state university and a state law school, I do have a dog in this fight. Despite my non-stellar educational credentials I seem to have been able to eke out a living, and I daresay my thoughts on legal and political matters are worthy of consideration alongside those harvardians and yalies. In fact, in the real day-to-day life of the law, the question of what school anyone attended never comes, at least not for me, except in silly debates like this.

George Will thinks "constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career."

Oh, please. Is the Supreme Court only a think tank with authority, or is it a living breathing collection of bright, talented and experienced Americans? How many years did Bill Rehnquist spend sitting around and practicing his constitutional reasoning?

I wonder if George Will could ever enjoy a dinner conversation with a graduate of the University of Nebraska?

This has already gone on too long. I'm not thrilled about this nomination either-- who is? For example, I agree with Peggy Noonan's piece today. Still, I think It's time for conservative cannibalism to end. Let's watch the Senate hearings and see what we've got here in Ms. Miers.