Bainbridge goes for baseball.
I’ll go football. For those of you who keep downplaying the idea that we should want highly qualified persons to sit on the highest court of the land, I would ask: how can it be that we demand our football teams be populated with the best talent available, yet not demand the same of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, arguably the premiere judicial institution in the world?
I am utterly baffled by the responses some of you have been leaving in the comments, or that I have read elsewhere–that basically we shouldn’t be concerned with such things.
Your basis premise is that only the annoited my sit on the bench to interpret the Constitution for the rest of is. Your analogy isn’t a sports team, but a sacred priesthood that interprets the laws for the uninitiated.
Comment by Director Mitch — Wednesday, October 5, 2024 @ 11:51 pm
That is a premise that you are going to have to defend, To state that the best and brightest and most qualified should sit on the bench is hardly anointing a priesthood.
You seem to be saying that basically anybody is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. That is an utterly ludicrous position.
Quite honestly it seems that you consider George Bush the High Priest who can make not incorrect appointments. Assigning that kind of confidence in any man is far more troubling from my perspective than insisting that SCOTUS nominees be highly qualified in the area of constitutional law.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 6, 2024 @ 6:51 am
BTW–perhaps you are basing your objection to my objection on the false notion that I think that all nominees must come from the bench. That is not the case. What I find lacking, primarily, is any element of her career that suggests any appreciable amount of time in the area of conlaw.
And the sports analogy does hold: we expect elite athletes on the football field, so why shouldn’t we expect elite legal minds on the high court.
I find that suggestion that we ought to settle for the mediocre on the Supreme Court to be ludicrous and ultimately indefensible.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 6, 2024 @ 7:04 am
Great football teams have a good mix of players. Some are specialists — usually kickers, quarterbacks, recievers, etc. They have studied their position since middle school, orientiented their life toward that position, and have developed into really special talents that that position even though they are useless outside that position. These can be really high draft picks and usually command the high dollars. These are the elite of the football world.
But a team also needs the flexible player. The player whose positon is right outside linebacker, but can play safety in a pinch, does well when shifted to the left side, can even play middle in case of an injury, and excels at special teams. Flexible journeyman players like this get little respect from the elite skill position players, but are vital to getting the job done.
Name a good football team that hasn’t had several of the flexible journeymen. They get little respect, but in their own way can be what makes a team successful.
Comment by Buckland — Thursday, October 6, 2024 @ 7:46 am
Name me a football team that left its best players on the bench all season while starting the third string, and I will show you a loser.
I don’t deny that we would want some diversity of background on the Court. However, I continue to question if Miers is the best choice to accomplish this fact.
I ask again: if Harrier Miers the best the President could do? If you honestly think so, I can accept that and respectfully disagree.
However, I must confess that I find it rather difficult to reach the conclusion, with intellectual honesty, that Miers was indeed the best choice that Bush could make–or, indeed, anywhere near it.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 6, 2024 @ 7:58 am
I remember these exact kinds of arguments the last time a president named Bush made a “diversity” pick. He walked out and said that Clarence Thomas was the best person available, and everyone scoffed and mumbled, “Yeah, he’s black” under their breath.
This is not to say that I’m thrilled about Miers, but maybe having someone who’s actually been in the real world for at least a part of their life isn’t such a bad thing.
I’m sure there are plenty of constitutional scholars who are more qualified, but the biggest problem I see in the courts is that they tend to be disconnected from reality somewhat. They seem to have a “this is how it ought to be” attitude rather than one of “this is how it really is”.
Comment by Matt — Thursday, October 6, 2024 @ 8:49 am
This strikes me as damning Miers with faint praise.
And isn’t part of the problem with Constitutional interpretation at the moment the way things are, rather than how they ought to be?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 6, 2024 @ 8:58 am
Touche’ and a good point.
I’m not exactly having orgasms about her nomination, but I am finding the “she’s not a constitutional scholar and has never been a judge” arguments a bit tedious.
And, btw, I was talking about “this is what the constitution says”, not “this is the mood of the public right now”.
Comment by Matt — Thursday, October 6, 2024 @ 8:10 pm