Poindexter Awareness update

More pundits are becoming aware of the emerging Poindexter factor in the Miers' nomination.

Baldilocks is downright eloquent, for a blue-collar babe (besides, its author, Juliette Ochieng, puts the term 'unwashed' into play). An outstanding post, and subsequent comment thread:

"I’ve kept out of the hair-raising debate on the Miers nomination simply because I’m one to acknowledge my own short-comings, my own gaps in knowledge. I simply am not a lawyer; I don’t even have an undergraduate degree.

Observing as those who do possess the formal credentials and/or demonstrable knowledge duke it out has been a valuable learning experience for me, however. The paid pundits on the right are, for the most part, against the nomination. Wait, allow me to rephrase that: the paid pundits on the right are, for the most part, rending their garments and tearing out their hair over the nomination.

George Will derides Miers' alleged intellectual inferiority and--sounding like the most leftist of leftists--gives her patron a kick in that area to boot.

Ann Coulter is incensed that such an inferior being—read: someone who did not attend an Ivy-league law school—has been put forth as the nominee.

Don’t our opponents claim that conservatives only believe that the privileged should be in power? It appears that... our opponents were correct. We unwashed and uneducated masses are forced to wonder whether a complete program of law is even being taught outside of the elite list of schools.

If this nomination has no other use, it has served at least one purpose: it has revealed how certain privileged members of society view the rest of us, even those of us who are formally educated... In short, the Big Boys and Girls are ticked because, after all that hard work they did, they--or one of their number—doesn’t have sole dibs on the spoils... For all their Ivy education and conceit, these screeching pundits would be road-kill in a game of chicken. Or poker."

The post, appropriately entitled "View from the Cheap Seats", also reveals what she thinks the real reason behind the nomination is. (Note the comments area. Because this post was linked by Instapundit, intellectual elitists in that crowd got a spanking - and some did not take it at all well. One sulker goes to the contortional extreme of accusing Juliette of reverse-elitisim. The vitriol merely underscores her point. Fausta shows up with some welcome common sense: "As for Ivy League vs non-Ivy league, it's the student that makes the school.")

One of the commenters makes an excellent point, which really should be read in its entirety:

"I have one other scenario... Maybe President Bush is trying to build a team of justices rather than select individual jurists for their own individual capabilities alone.

As a business manager, I am well aware of the fact that putting together a team of 9 leaders is a recipe for the failure of the team. You need a mix of personalities, capabilities and temperaments."

BeldarBlog had a very similar take, in a post that also should be taken whole:

"This is not an argument in favor of mediocrity. This is an argument in favor of adding some different kinds of smarts to the Court. Until fairly recently, it was the rule rather than the exception to draw some new Justices from the ranks of practicing lawyers who've been successful and who've demonstrated character, devotion to profession and community, and sound judgment as measured in a wide variety of contexts. I respectfully submit that if you think your menu has only three choices — circuit judges in column A, law professors in column B, and law professors turned circuit judges in column C — then you are indeed being either elitist, unimaginative, or both."

And here is an important but rarely-noted detail:

"Me, I rather like her resume. An evangelical Southerner who packs heat, works 16 hour days, represents clients big and small, ran a large law firm (which must be like herding cats), and has been one of W's closest advisors for years. That resume sure balances up the Ivy League court, the one which gave us Kelo and Campaign Finance Reform. And those who would berate Miers for not being an Ivy League legal scholar should note that she didn't make it to the East Coast because of her family circumstances."

Baldilocks' post raised a good deal of Poindexter Awareness throughout the land. Small Town Veteran:

"I'm well past tired of hearing a bunch of Yankee elitists putting down Justice-Designate Miers for not having an Ivy League education... Enough with that "second rate school" crap, OK?."

Of course, what concerns us is not so much the claim that one school might be better than another. (Such claims are often valid, although sometimes exaggerated.) What concerns us is the blithe and often self-serving assumprion that attending the 'right' school is in itself irrefutable proof of a superior human being (or in this case, SCOTUS candidate). It ain't necessarily so - and few are more (quietly) aware of this than those who are most shrilly insisting on it.

In that vein, The Anchoress notes the following from legal scholar John Woo:

"I want to note that several prominent political and legal leaders over the last few years have been calling for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices who have no previous judicial experience. This was, in fact, the normal practice for many parts of our history."

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, we find this comment on Althouse, as to why Bill Mahers, jibing away at Miers, suddenly seems 'funnier' to her:

"I see it as the elites on the left and the elites on the right found something to agree with. It won't last long."

(Althouse is linked often by Reynolds, a crony - uh, we mean fellow law professor. The remark was a probably-unintended commentary on her own elitist leanings.)

Speaking of Reynolds' cro - uh, law professors, Volokh confesses:

"As with any credential, the ultimate issue is the person, not their jobs... my instinct is that extensive experience as a law professor probably isn't very good training for service as a Supreme Court Justice."

On the rare occasions that her character is raised as an issue, it is shown to be sterling. One example:

"Harriet Miers testified in a 1990 voting rights lawsuit that the Dallas City Council had too few black and Hispanic members, and that increasing minority representation should be a goal of any change in the city's political structure.

In the same testimony, Miers, then a member of the council, said she believed that the city should divest its South African financial holdings and work to boost economic development in poor and minority areas. She also said she "wouldn't belong to the Federalist Society" or other "politically charged" groups because they "seem to color your view one way or another."

Miers' thoughts about racial diversity placed her squarely on the progressive side of the 1990 suit, which was pivotal in shifting power in Dallas politics to groups outside the traditional, mostly white establishment."

Yet, this very concern for justice is turned against her by the quota-fearing hard right:

"Well, this story is certain to inflame conservatives upset with the Miers selection even further. Dear God, the last thing we need is another O'Connor... if this little snippet is in any way reflective of her larger views, conservatives need to vote her down."

John Adams and Cold Fury smell hypocricy. Don Surber, in an inspired post, sees "a narcisstic fit of self-righteous indignation, the result of instapunditing instead of thinking" and takes the usual Reynolds' linkees to the woodshed, revealing why the 'Instastupid' crowd had no choice but to rail against Miers:

"...how [else] could people show off their Vast Intellectual Superiority?"

Thomas Sowell, while not exactly enamored of Miers, recognizes an anti-in-crowd vibe from her that deeply unsettles some folks' inner Poindexter:

"The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement."

Bottom line, here's what's really eating at the elitist Bush-haters both left and right:

"Bush is the President, and you are not."

If you're up for it, Michele Malkin is stepping back (sort of, for a moment) from the Miers fray to let others have their say.
Categories: Harriet+Miers, Supreme+Court, Humor, SCOTUS, politics, GOP, Nomination, Justice