But only a disingenuous pundit will argue that it is better to lose ground in the elections of 2006 than to maintain or gain ground then. And only a self-deceiving individual will argue Hillary-Obama is getting hurt by this intra-party melt-down.

The above is Hugh Hewitt’s latest argument for why conservatives should not block Harriet Miers’ nomination to SCOTUS.

This is the wrong angle to take. Nominating a justice to SCOTUS needs to rise above mid-term elections. The justice filling Justice O’Connor’s seat will be an integral part of the next generation. That is not something which should be taken likely. The candidate needs to demonstrate more than loyalty to POTUS. Mrs. Miers has no constitutional law background. That is what the job entails: applying the US Constitution.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States, –between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Even if Mrs. Miers is a brilliant lawyer, capable and decent, to say she is the best person available discredits others who have worked a lifetime studying the Constitution.

There is zero advantage and plenty of harm in defeating Miers, including the very obvious encouragement of the previously fever-swamp argument that Bush was a lame duck.

It is not so much trying to defeat Mrs. Miers. Rather, it is heralding a call for excellence at every turn, despite poll numbers, mid-terms, and other politically motivated initiatives. SCOTUS deserves the best justice available. Americans deserve the best justice available. Is a White House lawyer who has been in the president’s entourage for the past 15 years the best person available? If not, stop bloviating about what is politically expedient and hold the president, even if of your own party, to the highest standard.

I have kept out of the discussion, up to now, of the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

During my morning reading, I came across Mister Snitch’s piece commenting on Baldilocks’ post. The premise postulated is that the negative reaction from the right is elitism, not based on the merits of the nomination.

Baldilocks points out that the outrage to Miers’ nomination is because she was not graduated from an Ivy League school.

In short, the Big Boys and Girls are ticked because, after all that hard work they did, they–or one of their number—doesn’t have sole dibs on the spoils.

Interesting. Miers was graduated from Southern Methodist University. Baldilocks would have us believe that because Miers did not attend an Ivy league school, the pundits Will (Princeton) and Coulter (Cornell) have ratcheted up their vitriol against her. I imagine she would also include Charles Krauthammer (Harvard), author of Withdraw This Nominee.

Much like Baldilocks, I am not a lawyer. But all the spirited debate about what college one attended, while interesting, should not be the issue.

The lack of experience Miers has is the issue. She has practiced law, yes. Has she practiced Constitutional law? No. She has not been a judge either. And while sports teams may take a stab at an untested/unproven coach by giving someone “outside” the fraternity of coaches a chance to step up to the plate, is this what we want for one of the nine justices of SCOTUS?

Rather than elitism, it is an issue of effectiveness. Recall that the president’s father nominated Justice Souter who has turned out not to be the “home run” he promised. Conservatives, including me, desire to see the best legal mind on the bench. Ms. Miers has no qualifications to support the president’s claim that she is:

the best person I could find.

She may turn out to be the very best judge ever to grace the Earth. But for her to be confirmed there must be something which can be pointed to. Traditionally, this is the nominee’s record. Miers has no record. All we have is the president’s word she will be a good justice. I am a conservative because I was burnt by trusting the president’s word. I need more. The country deserves more.

This nomination is, well, I’ll say it . . . Bush League.