It Is Not Elitist To Demand Competence. (Miers nomination)

[Plaid Adder]

Behold the legacy of George W. Bush.

On the DU front page there's a link to a NYT article in which Arlen Specter notes that Miers will need a "crash course on constitutional law" before she can get through her confirmation hearings. In the same article, we discover that they are going to make the same argument they made about Bush during the 2000 and 2004 elections: if we complain about Miers being unqualified for the job, then we're being "elitists."

It has nothing to do with being an elitist. For Christ's sake, this is about simple common sense. The reason people want someone who's qualified for this job is that it is important.

And this discussion has very little to do with whether she has "intellectual heft" or not, either. It is about her career path up to this point, which has given her just about no experience that would be useful to her as a Supreme Court justice.

It doesn't surprise me that Miers is not up on her constitutional law. What the hell would she need it for as White House counsel? They don't give a shit what the Constitution says, never have. And you don't really need con law as a partner in a corporate law firm, or as the head of the Texas Lottery Commission, or as the head of the Dallas Bar Association. There's only two things you really do need to know constitutional law like the back of your hand for: arguing cases before a federal appeals court, or serving as a judge. Miers is not up on her con law because she has never done either of those things. And that is exactly why she is not qualified for a job which will make her one of the nine final arbiters on whether a law is constitutional or not.

Jesus, how hard is it for people to grasp this?

So Lindsey Graham is saying that the criticism of her as unqualified is "elitist." Well, they also said we were elitist for pointing out that George W. was unqualified, either intellectually or experientially, for the job of President of the United States. They said that just because he doesn't read, has no intellectual interests, can't put a sentence together, and doesn't appear to be capable of making a decision without consulting a dozen of his closest advisors, that didn't mean he shouldn't be President of the United States.

Well, folks, look around at where we are after 5 years of his regime. THIS MAN SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Similarly, Michael Brown should never have been made the head of FEMA, no matter how nice a guy he is, because as he has demonstrated, he could not do the job.

It is not 'elitist' to demand that before you put someone in a job that will give that person enormous power over the entire country and make decisions that might help or harm millions of Americans for generations to come, that person ought to be able to prove that he or she would do that job a) well and b) in good faith. Bush never gave many of us reason to believe he could do his job well or would do it in good faith; and I submit that at this point, everyone except the 37% who still approve of the job he's doing would agree on that.

No matter how smart Miers may be, she does not have the experience necessary to do this job well. Therefore, I would submit, it is also impossible for her to do it in good faith. Because once she's on the bench, she's not going to have time to turn herself into a high-powered constitutional law scholar. She will therefore be unable to make a decision based on her own understanding and interpretation of the constitution as a legal document, since she has never had the time or inclination to develop one. She will therefore base her decision on one of two things: 1) what her law clerks tell her to do or 2) what Bush, and after him Scalia and Thomas, tell her to do.

If Miers is confirmed, she will not be a judge. She will be a rubber stamp in Scalia's hand. Until she retires or dies. That is what putting someone who has no experience with constitutional law and whose main qualification is "loyalty" into that position means.

Yee ha,

The Plaid Adder

[Kber]

1. Elitism is putting an unqualified person in a position of power or

responsibility simply because they have the right contacts or friends.

Demanding that the most qualified person gets the job, even if she doesn't come from "the right sort of people", is the opposite of elitism.

The republicans are using "1984" as a "how to" manual again.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

2. Yup. I can hear Orwell groaning now.... n/t

[pinto]

3. kick n/t

[cassiepriam]

4. Americans don't like brains, Makes 'em uncomfortable.