No, We Will NOT "Mute" Ourselves

I don't think that John Fund and Bob Tyrrell get how big a stick-in-the-craw this Miers kerfuffle really is.

Fund writes:

While skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself. And those on both sides of the political spectrum will be able to make a more informed judgment.

The hearings and Miers being able to "speak for herself" are not dependent on us "skeptics" "muting" ourselves. And I hardly think that hearings in which Ms. Miers will, by definition, do everything humanly possible to hinder anybody from being able to "make a more informed judgment" will be of any assistance in adding to that empty storehouse of public knowledge. In case it has escaped Mr. Fund's notice, THAT IS PRECISELY WHY MIERS WAS CHOSEN.

Tyrrell, for his part, blogged the following:

Harriet Miers in the judiciary will be markedly better than Ruth Bader Ginsberg - and by a lot.

Yeah, I suppose that's true. It also isn't the point. What is the point is that Miers is far more likely to become another Ruth Bader Ginsberg than she is to become another Antonin Scalia - and more likely still to be another Sandra Day O'Connor, which (correct me if I'm wrong) we were looking to improve upon with this next appointment. Michael Luttig (just to limit myself to one outstanding constitutionalist judge) would not have carried that risk.

To continue with the prosaic homilies, think of it this way: if you go to a steakhouse - Ruth's Criss, say - and order the finest filet mignon on the menu, and what you get looks like it was cut off an old fisherman's boot, is that outcome made more acceptable by the waiter shrugging his shoulders and saying, "Well, at least we didn't serve you a plate full of dog shit!"?

Maybe Fund and Tyrrell would just keep quiet and eat the old fisherman's boot and load up on antacids afterwards. I would send it back, and if they didn't get me my fillet mignon, I'd walk out, and any appetizers and/or drinks would be on the house.

Miers will get her hearings. And maybe, despite everything, something of this will come out:

"Her critics say the problem goes beyond what Miers does or doesn't know about policy - and right back to a near-obsession with detail and process.

"'There's a stalemate there,' says one person familiar with the chief of staff's office. 'The process can't move forward because you have to get every conceivable piece of background before you can move onto the next level. People are talking about a focus on process that is so intense it gets in the way of substance.'

"One former White House official familiar with both the counsel's office and Miers is more blunt.

"'She failed in [White House Chief of Staff Andy] Card's office for two reasons,' the official says. 'First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.'"

And now he wants to move her to be the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

As Booker T used to say, "Tell me I didn't just see that!"