On the morning of the Meirs nomination, an AP US history student from last year sought me ought and announced: “Bush did a Jackson!”

I had to pasue and ask her to clarify her analogy. She recalled Jackson’s creation of the spoils system. Jackson argued (either sincerely or cynically, depending on whether you are a Whig historian) that holding office required no special skills or experience. Therefore you could fire the people with experience and bring in your own loyalists.

Many conservatives are arguing that one does NOT have to be brilliant to be a Supreme Court Justice. This strikes me as a convenient opinion that was not very apparent when we were having a love fest with Roberts’ grey matter. This blogosphere‚Äö?Ñ?Â¥s sudden rejection of intellectual meritocracy is best illustrated by Hog on Ice’s George Will Smokes Crack.

Read through the comments in the Hog piece. I particularly like the supporter of meidocracy who says:

“If she can’t figure out Con. Law for herself, her huge staff of brilliant Ivy League attorneys will probably be able to explain it to her.”

If we follow Hog’s argument to its logical extreme, we would be able to dispense with the whole nomination and confirmation auto-da-fe process. Let’s just put the names of everyone with a law degree in a hat and pick someone randomly. I mean, interpreting the Constitution is easy. Please note, that although this is sarcasm, I would be amused if we ended up with Associate Justices Annika and Sadie. They are, if you will recall, lawyer types. If experience doesn’t matter, we need more hot chicks.

One of Hog’s readers goes beyond the extreme:

“Why does it have to be a lawyer? I would just as soon have a smart truck driver on the court.”

Huzzah! Maybe even an organic farmer! I’d look even better in a black robe than Annika or Sadie. I would even try not to get cow shit on the bench. I confess I wouldn’t hire a staff of “brilliant Ivy League attorneys.” Put me on the Supreme Court with life tenure and I’ll make the Naked Villains my clerks. But I wouldn’t let the Minister of Propaganda write any opions. I’d just keep him around to get the coffee for me and my chief clerk, Ms. Pressly.

Seriously, some lawyers are better than others. Some minds are better than others. We want the best legal minds to interpret the Constitution. I’d even support a brilliant judge whose interpetations differed from mine. Put Luttig on the court. At least we’d have a high level of intellectual conflict. The friction of ideas will produce better rulings.

Please express your views on the relative merits of what Volokh calls “luminescense.”