Posted on 10/06/2005 2:30:51 PM PDT by freedomdefender
In many ways, the biggest fault line emerging among conservatives is between East Coast elites, on the one hand, and rank-and-file conservatives elsewhere in the country. As soon as the [Miers] nomination was announced, Beltway conservatives began griping that Miers, a former Dallas lawyer and a graduate of Southern Methodist University Law School, lacked the credentials to serve on the Supreme Court. "An inspiring testament to the diversity of the president's cronies," quipped National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. ...
Away from the Eastern seaboard, however, conservatives were warming to Miers. Irate National Review readers wrote to accuse the magazine of elitism. A conservative Texas lawyer complained that calling Miers's old firm "undistinguished" was "the kind of thing that only an absolute snob--someone who takes the position that no Texas firm could ever be anything but undistinguished--would say." Meanwhile, prominent evangelical leaders were busy singing Miers's praises. James Dobson, the president of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, gushed that "Harriet Miers appears to be an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court." Marvin Olasky, the compassionate conservatism guru, noted with satisfaction that Miers had been active in a conservative evangelical church for 25 years, with all that implies about hot-button social issues.
What explains the divide? ...what's important here isn't ideology but sociology --that conservative elites are frequently as credentialist, even snobbish, as the liberal elites they scorn. ...
To be fair, the conservatives who populate National Review's blog retreated from the credentialist critique of Miers once the angry e-mails began pouring in. They emphasized instead that Miers lacked a coherent conservative legal philosophy--that she'd "never written seriously on constitutional issues," as National Review's Jonah Goldberg wrote. But this is really just a politically correct form of the same argument. Pretty much the only places where students are encouraged to develop a coherent "legal philosophy" are the top 20 law schools. These philosophies then get refined in the kind of academic or professional writing that only a tiny fraction of lawyers ever do.
Hinterland conservatives had none of these reservations. An article on Focus on the Family's website talked up Miers's record at the "prestigious Dallas law firm of Locke Purnell Rain Harrell" and quoted the organization's legal analyst, who pronounced himself unconcerned by Miers's lack of judicial experience or fluency with constitutional issues. Contrary to the widely repeated axiom that conservatives wanted Bush to appoint a "strict constructionist," most rank-and-file conservatives don't really care about legal philosophies. They care about their political objectives, such as abortion and gay marriage. ...
So which side will win out? Allow me to answer with a brief digression. A few years ago, I interviewed a top adviser to New York Governor George Pataki. New York conservatives, particularly neoconservatives at think tanks like the Manhattan Institute, were up in arms over the governor's habit of buying off interest groups with generous state contracts. I asked the adviser whether he was worried. Without missing a beat, he told me that no New Yorker had ever rejected a candidate because the "neocons" didn't approve. And he was right: Pataki won an overwhelming majority of Republican votes that fall.
The same can probably be said of legal politics: No voter is ever going to walk into a voting booth wondering whether the president's Supreme Court nominees share her legal philosophy, for the simple reason that most voters don't have a legal philosophy themselves. That may be unsettling to conservative elites. But, then, George W. Bush has never been one to worry about elites of any kind.
Okay, maybe I was exageratting alittle. How about Janice Rogers Brown or Edith "Joy" Clement? I took a online test that told me I should want EJC.
In biology we use the term form and function. It seems here we have 2 schools of conservatism which diverge. The elitist was the President to be proper in form. Those who suppport the choice of Ms.Meirs want a supreme court nominee to function with originalist intent. Form over Function ........ OR.........Function over Form. The horns of this delima. And the fact is, we have very few facts.
"People just want a candidate with a well documented strict constructionist history"
I haven't made up my mind, but I wonder, would this even be a question if she went to lawschool at Harvard, for instance?
From my own perspective, I do not understand what school she went to has anything to do with anything.
She could turn out to be a Scalia or Thomas, or she could turn out to be a Souter, that's the problem. It is maddening that Bush skipped over a giant pool of candidates with a proven strict constructionalist history.
"Every one of the current justices went to Harvard or Yale, at some point. Would you call the results they produce meritorious?"
Elitists might say "Harvard and Yale own the supreme court"
Others might laugh at their collective legal thinking to keep from crying.
One guy I have a massive amount of respect for is David Horowitz who used to be a radical leftist. Still, I would never nominate him for SCOTUS and it has nothing to with legal qualifications, I've known bus drivers who would make great nominees.
Miers is more of a chance than any conservative convert because she was in a place at the time of her apparent conversion that could be explained by opportunism.
"It is maddening that Bush skipped over a giant pool of candidates with a proven strict constructionalist history."
This is my biggest problem the nomination as well. The only thing that has me on the fence is the hue and cry over her pedigree.
She's 61 years old, has the support of prominent disgusting leftists like Schumer and Feinstein, has no track record of conservative thought whatsoever, and the pick reeks of cronyism.
Not liking this has nothing to do with elitism, and I could care less what law school she went to.
Maybe this will clear your head. It is poor etiquette to discuss the subject, but let's face it Scalia isn't going to be around forever. A few years perhaps. I think it is fair to say that the Democrats have a 50% chance of winning the Presidency, perhaps more. Kerry had the most liberal voting record in the Senate, no substantive policy alternatives, and held both sides of many issues. He still got within 3 points of winning.
So this could be the last chance we have to replace Scalia. If the Democrats win the presidency, at best Scalia would be replaced with Souter, and almost certainly someone far worse.
This article = BS.
I went to an elite "blue state" isntitution earlier in my career and a not-so-elite SMU-esque "red-state" instution for law school. I don't have any sympathy for snobbery (especially the snooty East Coast variety), but I am solidly in favor of promoting known conservative intellectuals and jurists who are far more qualified than Miers.
It is important to remember that Miers' law school and law firm are not the sum total of her qualifications. In fact, they are a very small part of them. Many, many great lawyers and jurists have gone to these instutions or worked in firms similar to hers. By the looks of it, what she lacks (and others do not) is the preparation and experience necessary to make a formidable or (possibly) even a minimally competent SCOTUS justice.
Just off the top of my head, I can think of several good conservative judges on the Fifth Circuit who went to similar law schools (Barksdale, Jolly, Clement, Jones) but are far more qualified for nomination to the SCOTUS than her. In fact, in my very own semi-humble and quite conservative law firm, there are probably 5 to 10 people who have better and more impressive legal credentials than her. Unlike her, some of them (a) have argued a case before the Supreme Court (b) have a recognized and respected knowledge of constitutional law and (c) have spent time on the federal bench.
Snobbery has little to do with the conservative revolt brewing against the Miers nomination. Her lack of objective qualifications within her own profession have far more to do with it.
Can you imagine how much Freepers would have freaked out if Bubba had appointed one of his cronies?
I know I would have but I have no problem with Meirs over that issue.
I will let you figure out who is qualified, and who isn't.
You have far more knowledge in that area than I do.
Some of the things I've heard said these past few days are beyond belief.
These inside the beltway Republican Elitists who deem themselves better
than the rest of us for having attended Ivy League schools is nothing short
of nauseating. It's snobbery, and elitism, to the max.
They are behaving like John Kerry.
I am no longer impressed with them.
Yep...I'm upset, but it's still good to see you. ;o)
I love my accountant.
Great poker player.
My executor.
Gets me in any bank in Middle Tennessee.
My best business advisor.
Therefore, I want him to replace Greenspan.
Same logic.
Trust me.
i still cannpt believe we waited almost 20 years for this.
unapologetic fringer along with Peggy Noonan..lol
Won't it be refreshing to have a supreme court justice who for once has spent the majority of her legal career among the common, every-day, God loving American, rather than the elitist circles some conservatives seem to find so important. The attitude being shown by the elite conservatives has been a real eye opener.
So true. I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet that almost all of the liberal horses posteriors on the SC have gone to the "elite" law schools. Obviously graduating frm the "elite" schools, even with high honors, does not guarantee that one will not be an awful justice. Additionally most of the ridiculous liberal policies of the last sixty years have come from idiot libs from "elite" schools. Screw 'em.
Some of us from hillbillyville USA just resent the fact that the talking heads suckered us in and have displayed their true lack of respect for the president. As long as he played nice, they showered him with their adoration. Now the only thing they can do is act like shreiking harpies and Howard Dean in a rino costume. Yelling for Bush's impeachment is not worthy of any admiration from anyone except the moveon morons. Talking about the president "boozing it up" and how he hates conservatives crosses MY line.
One good thing, with Billy Boy Kristol whining now it blows the whole PNAC "conspiracy theory" outta the water.
I may warm to Miers the justice. I will never warm to Miers the nomination. GW had the chance to "sack up" and nominate a heavy hitter, and have a big Senate showdown in full view of the country.
Instead we got the lady Harry Reid 'preapproved' or whatever that story was. Say what?
I feel bamboozled. Next time I'll donate to the NRA instead.
Thank you, my point too. It was extremely distressing to see someone like Ann Coulter echo the liberal snobs when she criticized Miers for not going to an elite school. Most of the problems we have in the country were generated by liberals who went to those "elite" schools.
It's the same argument I read some years back when I read in a sports publication an article by some moron from NYC who was amazed that Larry Bird could be as good as he was despite coming from Indiana. Knowing Indiana's obsession with basketball (by the way Oscar Robertson came out of Indiana too), that phrase indicated the degree of ignorance east coast snobs have with the rest of the country.
Obviously these same people think all good thoughts have to come from out east. It's sad to find out that many well-known conservatives are just as much snobs as the liberals they castigate for being out of touch with common Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.