perfidy

Well, Harriet Miers just leapt another of the imaginary hurdles to her confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Ann Coulter is neither amused nor impressed. As I said during the Roberts confirmation process, if Ann doesn't like the candidate, then the candidate's probably got at least something going for them.

Why? Not because Ann's unintelligent, quite the opposite - she's very bright. She's also, however, highly caustic, so much so that she's far better fun (not informative - fun) to read than to listen to. I've long thought that if she could lose the whiny high-school know-it-all "can you believe it?" tone to her voice, she'd be far more effective at communicating. In this case, however, her causticity (causticism?) is directed at the alleged difference between the Ivy League law schools and the less-adored ones like SMU.

With a nod to the opinions of those who, like me, aren't impressed by Ivy League degrees when someone's actual work history is also available (i.e. Ivy League degree is an excellent credential for a new graduate, but isn't a balm for any occurrences of observed stupidity or incompetence later in life), Ann admits that it's reasonable to not be swayed by the dueling J.D. degree argument. And then she rides it to the hilt, asserting that a conservative from an Ivy League law school is a better and more solid conservative precisely because they remain one after an Ivy League indoctrination.

30 years later. Right. That would be believable if, in fact, the only forum in which rowdy right/left discourse were available was in Ivy League schools, or in college generally. But it's not, and anyone whose cognitive abilities were fully formed on exit from university, remaining unamended by experience since then, ought to be checked for dain bramage. John Roberts, as a ferinstance, is one bright gentleman, to all appearances a gen-ewe-wine legal scholar. But if he came out of Harvard Law as "that guy", I'd be shocked. He's done a bit since then.

And speaking of having done a bit since then, Ann seems to think that the only thing noteworthy that Miers has done is run the TX Lottery Commission. Others who've opined on the matter, such as Bill Dyer, at great length, aren't nearly as exercised about Miers' qualifications, and neither does Bill think running the Lotto is the most impressive resume item Miers possesses.

To the extent my previous mumblings on this matter aren't viewable as a coherent position, I'd state for the record that I will be emotionally and politically unaffected by the result of Ms. Miers' hearings. The process? Oh, that I'll probably react to, one way or another, because it has nothing much to do with her, and all to do with her inquisitors, but if she's ultimately confirmed by the Senate, that's fine by me, and if she's rejected, likewise.

The Republican Party doesn't have a constitutional prerogative to choose SCOTUS appointees, nor does the "administration", the Senate majority leader, or the President's masseuse. That prerogative falls to the president himself, and, in the words of Richard Jeni (which {ahem} I note after a Google source search for the phrase, I've used in this forum once before, but gimme a break - they apply) “Shut up, fat boy - the gentleman has MADE his selection”.

Perhaps I don't take the internal politics of the Supreme Court seriously enough, or think that there's some sort of cock-fight where they compare sheepskins before each deliberation, and perhaps I don't give enough credit to those who think they can accurately forecast the end result of any single Justice's nomination (see "Souter", "Kennedy", or "Earl Warren"), but a choice is a choice, and if she's confirmed, then so be it. And let the chips fall where they might.

All due respect to Ken Mehlman and the rest of the agitators requesting grass roots support for the candidate, I'd ask "why does it matter"?