The World Needs More Ninjas

It’s looking increasingly likely, though far from certain, that reason may prevail and Harriet Miers, Bush’s #1 fan, will never take a seat on the Supreme Court.

The typical argument against affirmative action is less qualified people get preference over more qualified people based on achieving racial diversity. Now, the Bush administration, who at one time was against affirmative action and still claims to be conservative, appears to be using the same argument for Harriet Miers’ nomination: a less qualified person should be placed on the Supreme Court based on achieving “intellectual” diversity and accusing opponents of “ism’s” (sexism, elitism, …).

First, we have this gem from Dan Coats, the dude appointed by the administration to guide Harriet Miers through the process.

“If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole,” Mr. Coats said in a CNN interview.

Mr. Specter, asked about that remark, laughed and wondered if it was “another Hruska quote” – a reference to an oft-quoted comment by the late Roman Hruska, a Republican senator from Nebraska, who defended G. Harrold Carswell, a Supreme Court nominee who was rejected by the Senate. “Even if he is mediocre,” Mr. Hruska said, “there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?”

Then, we have this insight from Ed Gillespie, a White House adviser:

At one point in the first of the two off-the-record sessions, according to several people in the room, White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers “has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism.”

Which are the same sentiments echoed by the First Lady, Laura Bush:

Asked by host Matt Lauer if sexism might be playing a role in the Miers controversy, she [Laura Bush] said, “It’s possible. I think that’s possible. . . . I think people are not looking at her accomplishments.”

So, let’s recap. Evidently, if you don’t think Harriet Miers should be on the Supreme Court, it must be because you believe women’s suffrage was a big mistake. Plus, you’re an elitist. Which, I’m not sure is such a bad thing because it’s generally expected that the elite positions in a field are filled by, well, the best the field has to offer. Kind of like the way the Cleveland Cavaliers practiced elitism in selecting LeBron James or elitism drove GE to appoint Jack Welch as CEO or Nike’s blatant elitism by choosing Tiger Woods for their advertising campaigns. And just for the record, any student of American history could tell you that virtually all of the Founding Fathers would qualify as elitists in every sense of the word.

So the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in favor of Harriet Miers seem to be: she’s mediocre and you’re sexist and elitist if you don’t think she should be on the highest court in the country.