Compelling

The competition is really tough, but I think we have found the single least convincing defense of the Harriet Meiers nomination, from an article the Instapundit recommends as "somewhat more persuasive" than others:

According to a source in her Dallas church quoted by Marvin Olasky, Harriet Miers is someone who

taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her."

As the court’s new junior member, the 60 year old lady Harriet Miers will finally give a break to Stephen Breyer, who has been relegated to closing and opening the door of the conference room, and fetching beverages for his more senior Justices. Her ability to do this type of work with no resentment, no discomfort, and no regrets will at the least endear her to the others. It will also confirm her as the person who cheerfully keeps the group on an even keel, more comfortable than otherwise might be the case with a level of emotional solidarity.

That's right. She's going to get the coffee. And George Bush, MBA of genius, understands that this is the key to altering group dynamics on the court. Seriously.

Comments

[Carlos]

I am re-reading Hamilton-Paterson's America's Boy, and boy howdy I keep on coming across apposite paragraphs.

"Too many years of too many people suppressing their own intelligence through fear or good manners have led to her holding forth with impunity, when what she badly needed was for someone to have the courage to stand up and say, 'Oh, for heaven's sake, this is just gibberish! Talk sense!' But nobody ever did; and the result is that people have increasingly come to think of her as roughly one-third mad. This is a pity, because she isn't. Like others of her class, her problem is partly that she has too seldom kept proper company, meaning unbeholden and disciplined intellects..."

[Scott Lemieux]

Not only that, but she always wore a Unicef box when she went trick-or-treating--that has to count for something!

[joe o]

Since the popularization of computers, supreme court opinons have become super complicated. Way too many concurring and dissenting opinions. Putting a few obsequious justices on the court could have useful side effects.