Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader had a great time last night. In case you didn’t read all about it on other blogs, there was a little fest of sorts last night. At the fest (held in the Washington Room of the Union Street Public House in Olde Towne Alexandria(e)) were JohnL of Texas Best Grok, Dawn of Caterwaulting, Ted of Rocket Jones, Buckethead of the Ministry of Minor Perfidy, Princess Cat of A Swift Kick & a Band Aid (and her boyfriend Matt), Robert the Llamabutcher, and Lysander of Alexandria.

And your Maximum Leader of course…

A great time was had by all. As with the other bloggers your Maximum Leader has met, it is a somewhat unique experience to meet a group of people who you feel you know at some level - but haven’t ever actually spoken to before. Conversation comes quickly and flows effortlessly. Your Maximum Leader is sure there is a sociology master’s thesis in the study of blogmeets out there waiting to be written… (If only your Maximum Leader were a sociology grad student…)

Your Maximum Leader was happy to meet everyone and enjoyed himself tremendously.

And now he is leaving for a trip to Toronto. Do not expect many updates from him during this week. That situation might change depending on circumstances - but it is best to set a low expectation.

In the meanwhile your Maximum Leader will just have to leave posting up to his capable Ministers…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was just reviewing some news and came upon a piece that made him think a little bit.

It seems as though there is a strike in Italy right now. (No surprise there right?) This particular strike is among actors and actresses. You can read about it here and here. Milan’s famous La Scala is cancelling performances of The Barber of Seville. And organizers of the Venice Film Festival (which your Maximum Leader is told is the oldest in the world) are saying that this year’s festival might have to be cancelled.

Why you may ask? Well, because the Berlusconi Government (a center-right government remember - the meanies!) are proposing an 8 million Euro cut in the budget for the arts. According to the various articles this is about a 30% cut overall to the arts budget of the central government. (No mention is made of regional support of the arts.)

This caused your Maximum Leader to get to thinking… Now he cannot recall if he has proclaimed as much in this forum, but he has been a constant foe of federal funding for “the arts” in this country. Now in case this revelation causes astonished gasps in the audience allow him to clarify a few things. Your Maximum Leader is against federal funding of “the arts.” This doesn’t mean he is against “the arts.” Indeed, he is something of a (small-fry) patron of the arts. He goes to operas regularly. He donates to a Shakespearian troupe in DC (and sees plays there too). He’s even been known to make donations to the National Gallery of Art. He’s even bought art at galleries! (He’s even bought crappy pieces by artists he thought had talent just to keep them going.)

Frankly, your Maximum Leader doesn’t object in the least to state and local funding of the arts. He is all in favour of “Arts” education in schools. In fact, he thinks it is essential to teach music and fine arts to children all through school. He has paid money to the Villainettes’s school’s PTA so that his progeny will have three full-time art and music teachers. (As he understands it the county pays for one and a half and the PTA picks up the tab for the other one and a half.)

Excursus: One of the art teachers at the Villainettes school is awesome. She is creative. She is engaging. The kids love her. The other day Villainette #1 (the Princess Villainette) came home and asked if your Maximum Leader had ever heard of Michaelangelo. H said that he had (of course). Then he popped out an art history text he had laying around (for just such and occasion) and showed her pictures of David, the Pieta, and the Sistine Chapel (both restored and unrestored). To which Villainette #1 said, “Humm… Yeah. Mrs ______ said he was great. All that stuff you showed me was pretty good.” Your Maximum Leader suggested that the next time she saw her art teacher that Villainette #1 should tell her that Titian could have painted her hair. * To illustrate the point your Maximum Leader got to show Villainette #1 a few Titian portraits too. He hasn’t heard if that message was relayed yet…

Anyho…

Your Maximum Leader doesn’t think that our federal government should be in the art business. He believes this for two reasons. (Niether of which will come as a major shocker to anyone he thinks.) The first is that he doesn’t believe that it is a wise application of tax revenues. (Especially given the spending habits of this Congress.) The second is that he believe it promotes bad art.

By bad art he means “art” by the talentless for the tasteless.

(Your Maximum Leader doesn’t know if he actually made up that last line or if it jumped out of his subconscious after hearing or reading it elsewhere. If it deserves attribution - let your Maximum Leader know…)

Now not all art that receives some federal funding is tasteless. But enough of it is that it shouldn’t be funded federally. Some of you out there may be saying to yourselves, “Oh my Maximum Leader is so right on so many different things; but on this! This! He may be a bit off key.” No, no my minions. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t want to fund art that doesn’t have private sector appeal. And if art has private appeal - it shoudn’t be funded.

You see… The reason that Michaelangelo, Titian, Raphael, and the other greats never did a “Piss Christ” or crafted a Madonna out of elephant dung is twofold. The first fold is that they probably would have been burned alive as heretics. But the second fold is the main point, namely that they knew what their patrons would go for - or what they could convince their patrons to go for.

And now we come back to Italy…

Your Maximum Leader is a bit conflicted about Italy’s cutting of the arts budget.

Wha? But… You were just… Have you gone completely ’round the bend? (You all ask yourselves.)

No. Not at all. You see. Italy has a long-standing tradition of state support of the arts. Of course, for centuries “state support” meant “paint what Cosimo de Medici wants on his palace wall” or “sculpt that new sexy Madonna for Julius II” or even “Lorenzo the Magnificent wants a portrait of his worstest enemy done up like John the Baptist brought before Salome.” **

So Italy, unlike the United States, has a history of supporting artists. In the old days it might have been hard to tell the difference between “the state” and “the Doge.” But if the Doge liked you, well then state support was headed your way. But that long history makes state support less objectionable to your Maximum Leader. At least a little bit.

Until he read that part where Franco Zeffirelli said that the budget needed to be cut to get rid of the horrible hangers-on. Then the cuts seemed okay.

And after all that thinking about Italy and Italians…

Your Maximum Leader’s thoughts turned to one of his favourite Italians, Niccolo Machiavelli. Specifically, your Maximum Leader mused on two stories concerning ole Nick’s passing. Both of which he will relate here to you…

The first goes like this… Niccolo Machiavelli is on his death bed and is having a recurring dream. He tells his friends (those who still visit) that in the dream he sees two lines of people walking in opposite directions. The first line consists of shabbily dressed peasants and common folk walking. He asks who they are and they respond something to the effect of, “We are the meek. We are the blessed. We are on our way to heaven.” The second line (going in the opposite direction) consists of well-dressed people. Tey are talking amongst themselves and obviously well-off and educated. He asks who these people are and they respond, “We are the philosophers, writers, theologians, and thinkers of our times. And we are the damned of hell.”

In relating this story to his friends, Machiavelli said that he would rather spend eternity in hell. Because the conversation would, at the least, be better.

The second Niccolo on his death bed story goes like this… Machiavelli is dying. His eyes have been closed for a while and his breathing is laboured and shallow. From time to time Machiavelli asks for water. A priest is summoned to perform Extreme Unction. At the point in the ritual when Machiavelli is asked if he renounces Satan he is silent. The priest asks a second time if Machiavelli renounces Satan. Again silence. The priest asks a third time, “Niccolo, do you renounce Satan and his empty promises?” Niccolo opens his eyes and says quietly, “Father, this is no time to make enemies.”

Your Maximum Leader is told that only one of these stories is vaugely true. But your Maximum Leader prefers the other one.

Carry on.
(more…)

John Elway, after living a full life, died.

When he got to Heaven, God was showed him around. They came to a modest little house with a faded Broncos flag in the window.

“This is yours for Eternity, John,” said God, “This is very special; not everyone gets a house up here.”

Elway did feel special, and walked excitedly up to his house. On his way up the porch, he noticed another house just around the corner. It was a three story mansion with a green and old sidewalk, a 50 foot tall flagpole with an enormous Packers logo flag, and in every window, a cheesehead.

John looked at God and said, “God, I’m not trying to be ungrateful, but I have a question. I was an all-pro QB, I won 2 Super Bowls, and I even went to the hall of fame.”

God said, “So what do you want to know, John?”

” Well, why does Brett Favre get a better house than me?”

God chuckled, and replied, “John, that’s not Brett Favre’s house — it’s mine!”

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will pose a rhetorical question to all you Islamochechinbadguys out there. (As he is sure so many of you read this blog…) Why do you continue to fuck with hostages? Really. Your Maximum Leader wants to know. Why bother with hostages? It hasn’t stopped the Russians yet. Why did you think your most recent outing would be different?

Come on now. Think about it. Your Maximum Leader asks what is going through your little brain? Let’s review. You take hostages in a theatre in Moscow; they gas you then shoot you. You take hostages in a department store, they run an armoured personnel carrier through the wall; then they shoot you. If a few hostages get killed in “rescue” attempt - well… The Russians will have a big funeral, drink some vodka, and curse God for making the Russian’s life so hard. The senario always ends the same way. Dead bad guy.

Help yourself out a little bit. Don’t take hostages. Taking hostages doesn’t stop the Russians from shooting you dead. And it makes them very angry. And when Russians get very angry they are more likely to kill you.

Just a little advice from your Maximum Leader.

Carry on.

Really really sick. One of those nasty viral thingies. His fever is down to 100.6 from 103 yesterday.

Its those Atlanta Braves “spirits” leaving your body….

You should be fully recovered by the start of the World Series.

Back to the trenches.

Do men always have great sex? No.

There’s a difference between satisfying and great. A man is capable of having satisfying sex almost every time. For a guy, it’s pretty easy to figure out what’s satisfying, and what isn’t. I’ll leave that to the reader. But great sex? No, not every time.

Great Sex is not the same as satisfying sex. It’s hard to define. Great sex comes in many flavors. It can mean getting jumped in the kitchen after coming home from dinner. It can be long and leisurely in a hotel room. It can be whatever.

I don’t think most college age people have a clue what truly great sex is, though I’m sure many guys will argue that point. A guy in his early 20’s, who is just amazed that he is getting laid may say any sex is geat sex. To him, maybe that is the case.

Being married with kids, great sex is hard to come by. You try and fit one in before the kids wake up. Or you fight sleep to try and get romantic when the kids are at their grandparents for the night simply because you’ll feel lame if you don’t. Satisfying? Probably. Great? No.

For more check out Phin Jamesy, Stigmata and Drunken Wisdom. The ladies Kathy, Chrissy and Phoenix.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader didn’t post yesterday because he was really sick. Really really sick. One of those nasty viral thingies. His fever is down to 100.6 from 103 yesterday. He might feel up to posting laster… But don’t count on it.

Carry on.

WoW!
I can’t believe it ML… you have been a Braves fan as long as I have known you… through good seasons and bad. Although, with 14 consecutive division titles, you can’t really say that they have had a “bad” season…
But with 14 straight division titles, and only 1 Chapionship. I think that sets a record for any Major US sports team (as far as lack of producing national titles despite winning division title).

But I digress….
That is an Amazing thing to switch teams, considering that the team he is leaving is the best team in the division, and the team he is going to is the worst team in the division… (although, at .500, there were only three teams in both the central and western division that had better records).

And can we take time out to applaud the National League East? All the teams in that division were at .500 or better!

Kudos to the ML for going with the hometown team!

Now, if we can just pry him away from those dreaded packers and introduce him to the hometown REDSKINS…..

Hail to the Redskins, Hail Victory….

Back to the Trenches…..

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader while very rarely agreeing with E.J. Dionne always enjoys reading his columns in the Washington Post. Today’s column on William F. Buckley, The Right’s Intellectual is no exception. While your Maximum Leader thinks that some of Dionne’s assertions are flatout wrong, he does make some interesting observations that everyone on the left and right should be aware of.

Carry on.

The White House has made me change my mind.

Meirs’ confirmation handler says it doesn’t matter if she’s brilliant. The less-than-brilliant Americans deserve to have their own judge.

Orin Hatch says we ought not to ask commerce clause questions until Ms. Meirs has had time to take a “crash course” in Constitutional Law.

Well, hell, let us just take the pro-Meirs side at their word. Confirm Meirs!

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader just isn’t feeling much like blogging today. Although that will not keep him from trotting out a few links and comments for your reading enjoyment…

First off, a follow-up to the piece from last week about researchers “rediscovering” the Spanish Flu, which was the cause of the Influenza Epidemic of 1918. Here is a great piece from the Washington Post about the quest to find the genome of that famous flu. Your Maximum Leader should also respond here to Loyal Minion Bill’s comment about reinventing the flu as a trigger for a “Stand” moment. (Bill’s comment can be read here - in the trail following your Maximum Leader’s last flu post.) Your Maximum Leader remembers reading in one of these articles that the Spanish Flu of 1918 is reasonably harmless now. As with most flu variations, if you survive it once you build up immunity to it in the future. So, most humans alive today have some natural-born resistance to that variation of the flu. Of course, we have no natural-born resistance to the newest version of the bird flu that appears to be spreading around Asia right now. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to fear the Spanish Flu escaping the lab and wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting population.

Excursus 1: Your Maximum Leader does, in fact, have some lingering fears that biological weapons manufactured and improperly stored in the former Soviet Union. Those biological agents do pose a real threat to cause a chain reaction of plague as described in the early chapters of Stephen King’s novel, The Stand.

Excursus 2: Your Maximum Leader believes that 100 years from now when people are studying late 20th Century literature (f in fact they do study literature in the future) the only book of Stephen King’s that will be read will be The Stand. Of all of his novels it is the only one that is truly epic in scope.

Secondly… Your Maximum Leader predicted an upset victory of the Atlanta Braves over the Houston Astros in the National League Division Series. Well that didn’t happen. Neither did the Red Sox over the White Sox. St Louis prevailed. And we’ll see who wins in the Yankees/Angels series. At this point your Maximum Leader would like to see a St Louis/White Sox World Series. Frankly he wouldn’t mind a Houston/White Sox World Series either. He doesn’t want either the Angels or the Yankees fighting for the American League. Your Maximum Leader, in honour of the Astros, doffs his bejeweled floppy hat towards the fair Minion Molly (of Houston). Your boys won a great series. You should be proud.

Thirdly, while talking baseball. Your Maximum Leader, now that the regular season is over, will officially announce he is switching sides… Sides in baseball that is. You may remember your Maximum Leader’s struggles with Washington DC getting the Nationals. Well… Your Maximum Leader went to a Nats game a few weeks ago and at that game got himself a authentic fitted Nationals cap. On the way home from the stadium, he drove through downtown DC and gave his Atlanta Braves cap (purchased at Turner Field during a great Braves/Mets series by the way) to a homeless guy. Thus was your Maximum Leader’s conversion from a Braves to a Nationals fan complete. He is sure he’ll always have a soft spot for the Braves in his heart, but he’s fallen for his hometown Nats.

Fourthly… Your Maximum Leader promises that in the Mike World Order Sadie and Annika will both be on the Supreme Court of the MWO. Frankly, if you are a loyal minions and swear fealty to your Maximum Leader early on (like now) you will be picked for some great patronage job. Your Maximum Leader makes no secret of his support of cronyism in the MWO. To be a Friend Of Mike is everything.

Fifthly… Speaking of Friends of Mike and the Mike World Order… It has been a while since he posted it… So if you read below the fold you’ll have the newly revised list of the 40 Signs of the Mike World Order (in no particular order). Otherwise…

Carry on.
(more…)

My main Gripe is that I think that the nominee for the court by a Repubican, conservative President, should be a logical choice that ANY Republican, conservative President would make.
Would Regan, have chosen Miers?
Would Bob Dole have chosen Miers?
Would the next president, G Allen, choose Miers?

I think not.

There are a lot of Republicans out there that are not comfortable with this choice, and are hoping that she won’t get confirmed.

back to the trenches…..

Foreign Minister

Quoting from The Federalist Papers, No. 76, “The Appointing Power of the Executive,” Tuesday, April 1, 1788:

. . . To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to hs political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure . . . (emphasis added)

Mr. Hamilton is rolling in his grave, undoubtedly.

Believe.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader hasn’t written too much over the past few days about the Miers Nomination. Sure he wrote that he wasn’t getting warm tinglies… He also wrote that he agreed with David Frum’s comments in an NRO article. But there was something more about the nomination that upset him.

Many people are claiming to be upset with Ms. Mier’s legal education. Indeed your Maximum Leader would be happy to have more judges from less prestigious law schools. Here in the great Commonwealth of Virginia the University of Virginia law school has the reputation of being the best law school in the state. But lawyers coming out of the University of Richmond and William & Mary pass the bar at a slightly higher rate. If a law school teaches the practical application of the law - and a student learns what they should; then the law school from which a person graduated shouldn’t be an issue. Indeed it is not in this case.

Excursus: If your Maximum Leader is not mistaken, Virginia is still one of a very few states in which one is still allowed to “read law.” This is to say that one can do self-study and then apply to take the bar. If you pass the bar exam and a skills test you can practice in the state. Your Maximum Leader could be mistaken on this, but he is pretty confident he correct. This is the “Patrick Henry” clause in our law. Patrick Henry didn’t formally study law at William & Mary (the only law school south of Philadelphia at the time) but he read law and passed the bar. But he digresses…

So… Educational background is not a problem. What about her experience? Well, she seems to have been a competent lawyer who did make a lot of firsts in her career. While her expertise was not constitutional law, she has a firm grounding in practical law. She has seemed to be in the trenches for her whole career. On the balance that is a good thing. A clear-thinking lawyer who has no previous judicial experience would, in many ways, be an asset on the Supreme Court. That persepective could be quite valuable.

So your Maximum Leader isn’t all that upset with Ms. Miers’ legal career as a possible cause for her disqualification. Indeed, your Maximum Leader will muse that perhaps a clear-thinking person who may have some legal training but wasn’t a lawyer might even be an asset on the Supreme Court. Perhaps we should have an English teacher on the Court. Or a Hitorian. Or just a plain ole citizen who can read the following words and interpret their meaning clearly: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” But once again, your Maximum Leader digresses…

The Smallholder, Brian, and Bill are having a little side discussion about Miers’ intelligence. (Among other items…) Your Maximum Leader, continuing his line of thinking from a moment ago, doesn’t necessarially believe that brilliance is a requirement for being on the Court. In fact he would claim that the majority of the 100 + people to have served on the Supreme Court were not brilliant. They were all intelligent people. Ms. Miers has finished law school, risen far in her field, and seemed to perform better than her peers. This is not the work of an unintelligent person. Indeed, your Maximum Leader isn’t quite sure what standard of intelligence Ms. Miers’ supporters and detractors want to establish. Her accomplishments appear to show that she isn’t a cretin. So one would have to say that Ms. Miers is intelligent enough to sit on the high court.

So not having disqualified Ms Miers on the basis of education, experience, or intelligence where does that leave your Maximum Leader?

It leaves us with her judicial temprement & cronyism.

The President and many supporters say that they know Ms Miers and that she is a “judicial conservative.” And that may be true - so far as we know. And with that little codicil to a phrase - so far as we know - is the beginning of your Maximum Leader’s problem with Ms. Miers. Your Maximum Leader just read over a news analysis peice over on the Washington Post about the Miers nomination. (Check it out yourself.) It comes close to capturing some of the feelings your Maximum Leader has had over the past week about the nomination. She hasn’t faught in the trenches with other conservatives. She hasn’t distinguished herself as a conservative. (And for that matter, neither has George W. Bush - but that is going to be another post.) Nor has she given us any indication of her conservative judicial temprement.

Your Maximum Leader would prefer not to have to guess about her judicial temprement. Sure Ronald Reagan had to guess at Sandra Day O’Connor’s judicial temprement. Not only because she is a woman, but because there were not a lot of judges (or even lawyers of significance) who were known to be “conservative.” The pool was small. That is, 20 years later, not the case today. There are plenty of judicial conservatives out there to choose from. Their names are being bandied about all over the place so much that your Maximum Leader will not bother to recite all their names here. (Except to say the he likes what he has seen of Owens, Luttig, and Brown.)

Frankly, your Maximum Leader is getting a little tired of stealth nominees to the Supreme Court. Sure he realized that after Robert Bork getting a true ideolouge on the Court was right nigh impossible. At least from where he is sitting ideologically. But really… Have we tried our best to put the best and brightest on the high court since Bork in 1987? No. We haven’t. In fact your Maximum Leader is thankful that somehow Antonin Scalia slipped in before things got so dicey. Your Maximum Leader is fairly confident that if we were to go back and check the record we would find that Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Bryer and Ginsburg were not the best and brightest available. Indeed, all the talk this week about Miers has made your Maximum Leader positively bilious. All these commentators (on the left and right) going on about how we deserve better than Miers. You know, that may be true. And your Maximum Leader would counter that we deserve better than just about everyone on the Court.

But politics being what it is… We aren’t going to get the best and brightest. Because they (the best and brightest) ar too contraversial to some Senator or interest group. It is sad really…

Well that leads us down to cronyism. There is not much to say on this one except that your Maximum Leader does think that this nomination comes down to Bush looking around and saying to himself, “I really want to pick Alberto Gonzales - cause he’s my buddy. But everyone tells me I’ve gotta pick a girl. Hummm… Oh yeah! How about Harriet? She’s my buddy too!”

Sure the President says trust me. But lately the President hasn’t done much to earn any blind trust and devotion. (Frankly he’s never had your Maximum Leader’s blind trust or devotion…) Your Maximum Leader doesn’t want to trust him on this. He shouldn’t have to trust the President on this one. And it is upsetting that the President would even ask.

Your Maximum Leader hopes Miers doesn’t get confirmed to the high court (although he doesn’t see how she will not be at this point). In fact, he hopes it is some nexus of improbability that brings the Miers nomination down. Something like Sam Brownback and Chuck Schumer joining together and saying “Miers shall not pass!” He doubts it will happen. But if it does, perhaps the President will pick someone better. (Although the odds are that he would just go and pick Alberto Gonzales… Ick.)

Carry on.

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.”