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.