There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others on a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous.
It will be argued that this criticism is elitist. But this is not about the Ivy League. The issue is not the venue of Miers’s constitutional scholarship, experience and engagement. The issue is their nonexistence.
Also, Krauthammer throw something out there that many liberals have been grousing about since the Roberts hearings.
Miers will surely shine in her Judiciary Committee hearings, but that is because expectations have been set so low. If she can give a fairly good facsimile of John Roberts’s testimony, she’ll be considered a surprisingly good witness. But what does she bring to the bench?
I think this is a fair criticism, as Roberts was particularly deft at not answering any question about any opinion, which did trouble me, but ultimately didn’t shift my opinion against him.
But Meirs is a different story entirely and Krauthammer nails it in the very first sentence. Why Meirs? Because she knows Bush? Unacceptable.
Obviously Krauthammer is arguing this for different reasons though. He sees this as a sign of weakness from a great man who’s willing to do courageous things. I see it as a clear act of cronyism from a man whose life has been defined by cronyism.
History could prove that we may both be right.