Following up on Oliva’s post, it seems to me that, as Lew Rockwell has posted, if the movement conservatives hate her, she can’t be all that bad. It seems to me that most of her alleged flaws are not really objectionable. Who cares about her law school or pedigree or whether she is a lawyer or has had judicial experience? The Constitution is short and ought to be able to be parsed by a reasonably intelligent citizen. Given that the Constitution as written, if followed, would in fact lead to a more libertarian society, the main criterion for Supreme Court Justice for the libertarian ought to be the likelihood he or she would follow the Constitution in his or her rulings. This does not seem to me to correlate with pedigree or judicial or legal experience--if anything, it correlates negatively with it. In fact, in my view, one reason mainstreamers focus on criteria such as “competence” is that it allows them to avoid focusing on substantive matters. I would rather have a mediocre-intellect who has sound, honest, common sense views on the Constitution than a mainstream genius.
The mainstreamers focus on “pedigree” etc. so they can avoid any radicals getting on the court.
Now William Watkins of the Independent Institute has some interesting and insightful comments about her nomination. After noting some of her pluses, he is concerned about her lack of legal writings or lectures on major legal issues:
Miers’ lack of a written record can only be attributed to some combination of the following: (1) she lacks the intellectual heft to participate in debate over constitutional issues, (2) she does not care, or (3) she has carefully avoided stepping into the fray in order to advance her career. Any one of the reasons is sufficient to disqualify her from consideration.
...
Unless Miers quickly provides some hard evidence of her legal philosophy and opinions, the Senate will be compelled to exercise its constitutional check and reject the Miers nomination. There is simply too much at stake to place blind faith in the President’s choice.
I understand the latter point, but I disagree with the idea she should be rejected for any of the three possibilities he lists. Intellectual heft? Why should the Constitution require a genius to interpret it? Does not care? So what? Why do you need to have your job be your hobby too? And staying silent to advance her career? I still do not see how this makes her likely to be worse than published mainstream leftists and rightists. Given today’s political realities, what are the real alternatives? If Miers had published, it would either be mainstream--socialist/statist--or it would not. If not, then she would not be confirmed.
In other words, the only people who do publish their views are those with explicitly mainstream views. So the worst case is that her private views are just mainstream, in which case we are no worse off than if she had published. But if her views are just a tad more radical than the typical published egghead judge, all to the better. Plus, she’s an evangelical Christian, and you know that drives the left bonkers.
