I suppose the real problem with Harriet Miers nomination is that I actually have to wait until the hearings before I can make up my mind. Oh, I admit I'd like to support her, but nothing so far has indicated to me that she clearly should be on the Supreme Court, nor has there been a clear indicator that she shouldn't. Team Bush has not been able to put forth a good, let alone compelling, reason beyond George and Laura really like her, and even her most ardent critics have shot intellectual blanks. She's beyond a stealth candidate, she's a Rorschach test.
I suppose after Roberts we think the bar is set pretty high, but even a cursory examination of both the current court and past courts show not just that the mediocre is well represented, but can thrive. And the idea that to understand the constitution you have to be a great intellect who's done nothing but thought deep thoughts about it is a bunch of hooey. It's a two page document that relies on a combination of common sense and historical insight. Now, I have to admit that the actual court decisions, especially in later years, can be quite impenetrable, especially for those who expect that they should be clear and be related in some modest degree to the actual text. Quite frankly, what good is stare decisis if the previous decisions are not just a hopeless muddle, but unconstitutional on their face, and not even followed by the wing of the court that holds that evolving community standards, as discovered by canvassing nine people who just happen to be the nine most powerful lawyers in Washington, D.C., trump all.
