How to Denounce a Conservative Hack Appointment (If You Really Must)
Whoa. First rock-ribbed Tory George Will denounces Harriet Miers as an unqualified hack, and now impeachment cheerleader Ann Coulter decries her as a blot on the noble tradition of conservative legal philosophy. Hear the loudmouthed stick-figure roar:
Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.
One Web site defending Bush's choice of a graduate from an undistinguished law school complains that Miers' critics "are playing the Democrats' game," claiming that the "GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness." (In the sort of error that results from trying to sound "Ivy League" rather than being clear, that sentence uses the grammatically incorrect "which" instead of "that." Web sites defending the academically mediocre would be a lot more convincing without all the grammatical errors.)
. . . . Au contraire! It is conservatives defending Miers' mediocre resume who are playing the Democrats' game. Contrary to recent practice, the job of being a Supreme Court justice is not to be a philosopher-king. Only someone who buys into the liberals' view of Supreme Court justices as philosopher-kings could hold legal training irrelevant to a job on the Supreme Court.
Honey, you had us at the lecture about the "that/which" distinction.
This Is What "Advise and Consent" Means [Ann Coulter]