Below the Beltway

OK conservatives, put down your clubs and machetes for a moment, withdraw the Claymore from your fellow Republican's intestines, and take a little pop quiz.

Who made the following statements?

Mystery Person A - "The voters had a temper tantrum last week...."

Mystery Person B - "I mean, there are two groups here, the conservative intellectual priesthood, and they've thrown a tantrum...."

I'll give you a hint. One is (or was) a well-known liberal, the other person is a well-known conservative.

Time's up, put down your pencils.

Person A is Peter Jennings, and the Person B is Fred Barnes.

Et tu, Fred?

Barnes made his disappointing remark during a segment of the Hugh Hewitt radio show last Friday. (Transcript courtesy of the Generalissimo.)

The Beltway Boys were talking with Hugh about the Miers nomination, a storm that is still winding up over decidedly unpacific waters.

That Barnes would use such a pejorative term is aggravating, as it is part of the Lindsey Graham Defense, a.k.a. the Shut Up Defense.

Barnes was trying to argue that President Bush's record on appointing judges is "really extraordinary", and that Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt. To that I would say two things.

First, before July 19 of this year, Bush had appointed precisely 0 Supreme Court Justices. Zero. It's hard to establish a trend with zero data points.

Yes, yes, I know Barnes was talking about all the lower court judges Bush has appointed. But, a Supreme Court Justice is more important. A SC Justice holds more power, and there is no remedy to an activist Supreme Court. No easy one, anyway.

In Roberts, though he came with a good conservative background, Bush appointed a nominee slathered in teflon, and Roberts slid through confirmation hearings on the Admit Nothing defense.

With Miers, we know even less about her. Are we as a Republican party so weak that we can brook no dissent, dissent that stems from a sincere desire to see the best possible Justice on the Court?

Second, I would like to see a convincing argument about when we might be allowed to question the qualifications and fitness of a Supreme Court nominee. If President Bush had nominated, say, Pamela Anderson, would we skeptical conservatives be throwing a tantrum if we questioned the soundness of that pick? Would we be elitists, fanatics, pouters, sanctimonious purists, or Dowdists? I doubt it.

Somewhere between Miers and Pammy there must be a line that we wild-eyed dissenters crossed. Where is it? What, precisely, are the general criteria for when we can and cannot criticize a President's nomination?

Are we supposed to support the Miers pick because we know she would make a fine Justice? I really would like to know how we know that. As I wrote about here, the consensus argument seems to be that we don't know enough about Miers one way or the other to criticize the pick.

So, my question is this. Is it wise to risk a nomination to something as important as the Supreme Court on someone who is an enigma? Am I throwing a tantrum for asking that question?

Ok, conservatives, you may now resume your maiming and mauling.