Bush's Nominees and the Miers Kerfuffle

In considering Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court, it is worth remembering that President Bush has shown a remarkable ability to think outside the box in making high-level appointments. Arguably the four most important appointments during his Presidency have been: (1) Dick Cheney as Vice-President; (2) Don Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense; (3) Condoleeza Rice as National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State; and (4) John Roberts as Chief Justice. While there may be some quibbles, I think conservatives generally are very supportive of all of these appointments -- indeed, many of the same blogs that are savaging Miers for having "never been a judge before" are also supportive of Condoleeza Rice running for President in 2008, although she has never run for elective office before nor had any executive experience. But the point is that none of these appointments would have been predictable by the punditocracy. Even in the case of Roberts, remember that he was initially appointed to replace Justice O'Connor -- a white male Ivy League insider conservative replacing a female Westerner moderate.

President Bush has gone against the collective wisdom of the chattering classes before, with good results. I think conservatives owe him a high level of deference in his choice of Miers, barring the discovery of some new facts about her or an egregiously bad performance before the Judiciary Committee.

By the way, I think the expectations for Miers are so low that it's a safer bet that she will exceed the expectations by a spectacular margin and put many of the current naysayers to shame. I mean, really, do you think that (1) becoming managing partner of a major law firm, and (2) arguing major cases for major corporate clients over 30 years, and (3) being elected the President of the state bar association, and (4) being the personal lawyer to the Governor of a major state who is also extraordinarily well-connected to national power centers, and (5) doing such a good job that he chooses you to bring with him to Washington when he becomes President as his staff secretary, and (6) you do such a good job in that that he makes you White House Counsel, and (7) that you do such a good job in that that he puts you in charge of vetting judicial nominees like John Roberts et al., and (8) that you do such a good job at that that he decides to nominate you even though doing so will undoubtedly be perceived by the know-it-alls at National Review Online (what are their resumes again?) as cronyism.... do you think all that suggests a person who is likely to wilt in the Judiciary Committee? Do you really think that suggests a person who isn't intelligent?

Much of what passes for intellectual commentary from NRO and other places smacks of the guys we all know who are 40-something and haven't had the careers they dreamed of, which they think is unfair because, as they will be quick to tell you, they had really really high SATs and went to really really good schools that were really really hard to get into. So they look at people like Miers who (they think... but on what evidence?) aren't as smart as they are, but have nevertheless risen to higher positions, and they whimper "not fair," like my eight year-old.