“Doers & Kibitzers:” Miers and Her Critics
One of the reasons I look forward to Sundays is so I can read Jack Kelly’s latest column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. As usual, Jack doesn’t disappoint with this week’s offering. Here’s some of his best work this week:
The world is made up of doers and kibitzers. We in the chattering classes are kibitzers. Many, like Will, have convinced themselves that thinking and writing about what other people do is more important than actually doing stuff. It isn’t. Harriet Miers is a doer. She practiced law where it matters most, in the courtroom. She was managing partner of a mega Texas law firm. For the last five years she has been staff secretary at the White House, a more important job than most of her critics realize, and White House counsel, at the intersection between law and policy, and as good a preparation for serving on the Supreme Court as a year or two on an appellate court.
Some of the most profound philosophical discussions I’ve had were with military officers. (The imminent prospect of violent death enhances reflection on the meaning of life.) But they haven’t written much because they were too busy doing things. Harriet Miers may not be a deep thinker. We’ll find out during her confirmation hearings. But to assume she is not simply because she’s a doer is unfair, and almost certainly inaccurate.
Mr. Kelly isn’t thrilled with Miers’ nomination in light of the fact that Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Janice Rogers-Brown and numerous others were available. Still, his arguments here are persuasive. Let’s review them:
Many, like Will, have convinced themselves that thinking and writing about what other people do is more important than actually doing stuff. It isn’t.
George Will is right in the sense that writing is a viable way of recognizing the quality of someone’s scholarship. That’s as far as that extends, though. Doers often don’t place a high priority on writing because it gets in the way of them getting things done.
A former colleague of mine is a typical doer. My friend had a screensaver that read “If you want to get things done, delegate to the busiest-looking person in the department because they’ll get things done.” This friend didn’t spend much time writing. His time was typically spent jamming 14 hours of work into a 10 hour shift. The great thing about my friend is that he was, and still is, a great ‘root cause’ person as well as a person who knew how to patch things together to the important things accomplished.
Based on the press accounts that Harriet Miers was the first to arrive and the last to leave the White House Counsel’s office, Harriet sounds much like my friend. Based on the fact that Alberto Gonzalez didn’t give the President great advice on the handling of Gitmo prisoners and that nothing that Harriet Miers has offered counsel on has been second-guessed, it sounds to me like she’s very qualified.
She practiced law where it matters most, in the courtroom.
This country is focused on the hot button issues that the Supreme Court has ruled on and think that those are all that matters. Yes, they’re important. No, they aren’t all important. The vast majority of issues resolved at the Supreme Court level are resolving issues that originate at the trial level.
For the last five years she has been staff secretary at the White House, a more important job than most of her critics realize, and White House counsel, at the intersection between law and policy, and as good a preparation for serving on the Supreme Court as a year or two on an appellate court.
Jack’s right on the money with this. The conservatives’ hero Clarence Thomas had little experience being an appellate court judge. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist didn’t have any appellate court experience. To me, experience at the appellate court level is the most overrated qualification.
Some conservatives say they can’t trust Mr. Bush because he’s never vetoed a spending bill; hasn’t sealed the border with Mexico, and did sign the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. President Bush never promised to be a fiscal conservative or a hard-nose on illegal immigration. He did promise to appoint judges who would be faithful to the Constitution.
To date, he’s kept that promise. Most of his nominees to appellate courts have been outstanding. It is because of him that John Roberts is on the Supreme Court. And the person responsible for vetting his judicial appointments was … Harriet Miers.
This is the only test that matters. I’m as angry with him signing McCain-Feingold as anyone but I won’t use that to say that President Bush isn’t trustworthy when it comes to picking appellate court judges. He’s done conservatives proud with his nominees and that’s what George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum and Bill Kristol would be wise to focus on.
Let’s put the McCain-Feingold trust factor thing in a little different perspective. Will says that he can’t Bush’s judicial nominees because of McCain-Feingold. That’s like saying we could trust President Clinton’s foreign policy because he was so brilliant of an economist. We’d rightly reject the Clinton argument because one has nothing to do with the other. Similarly, McCain-Feingold and judicial nominees have nothing to do with each other, either.
As Paul Mirengoff and Hugh Hewitt propose, it’s one thing for conservatives to disagree with each other on this nomination. It’s quite another to destroy the GOP’s unity over this nomination. As I’ve said before, the hearings will tell us alot about her understanding of the Constitution. If she passes that test, then that’s what we should base our positions on.
Until then, let the blood-letting subside.
Cross-posted at ConfirmationWhoppers
RELATED:
Hurricane Harriet