It's elitist to demand mediocrity
Varifrank writes:
This idea that has developed as of late that Supreme Court Justices are or should be “super human smart guys” is just crap and frankly I think its dangerous for the Republic. I think that fundamentally, the nomination of Mrs. Miers is an antidote for that poisonous idea. We’ve had our quota on the Supreme Court for women and minorities, now we have a slot for the “average American”. Yes, she is a lawyer, but she’s the least lawyer to be on the court in quiet some time and frankly I find that really refreshing and not a handicap at all.
Yup, demanding mediocrity from Supreme Court nominees is so 1970:
"Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?" - Roman Hruska in defense of Nixon's Supreme Court nominee Harold Carswell on the charges that he was 'mediocre'.
Damned elitists.
You know, the funny thing is, I feel that the 70's, they are returning in other areas of our lives.
Posted by: Bostoniangirl | October 06, 2005 at 06:36 PM
People are represented by their Congress Persons, their Senators and their President. All of them can be the bastions of mediocrity (I wish they all reached that level) and less than average intelligence. When it comes to thinking great thoughts about issues of vital social importance _and_ the person can't be removed from the office...I'll take smart, thanks.
Posted by: chris | October 06, 2005 at 06:38 PM
I don't have any problems with her qualifications as there now known. It's what there not telling us that bothers me.
Posted by: Joseph | October 06, 2005 at 07:06 PM
I always thought George Romney, Mitt's dad, said that. Guess I'm older and more delusional than I thought. Now where are those car keys...?
Posted by: nonplussed | October 06, 2005 at 08:02 PM
You're forgetting the anti-Semitic punchline to Hruska's speech: "They can't all be Cardozos and Frankfirters and stuff like that there."
Posted by: Scott Lemieux | October 06, 2005 at 09:50 PM
Just imagine how they'll react if we ever get a philosopher on the Court. :-)
Posted by: David | October 06, 2005 at 11:22 PM
Scott: You forgot Brandeis - he made Hruska's "intellectual" list as well.
Posted by: Eli | October 06, 2005 at 11:34 PM
The great thing about arguing in favor of stupidity: if someone first buys an argument in favor of it, you can't argue them out of it. How would you? With an intelligent argument?
Posted by: 1984 Was Not a Shopping List | October 07, 2005 at 01:16 AM
"The great thing about arguing in favor of stupidity: if someone first buys an argument in favor of it, you can't argue them out of it. How would you? With an intelligent argument?"
How about an even more stupid argument! If that fails there's always name calling and insults to their mother.
Posted by: Njorl | October 07, 2005 at 10:58 AM
But that wouldn't argue them out of it, just further into it--when attacked in response, stupid arguers entrench themselves in their stupid arguments, like a contracting version of Chinese fingercuffs.
Posted by: 1984 Was Not a Shopping List | October 08, 2005 at 12:35 AM