My email box is still overflowing with folks touting Miers lack of qualifications as her biggest selling point. So what if she didn’t go to a great school? So what if she never edited a law review? So what if she’s not a judge? So what if she hasn’t written articles for fancy journals? Etc, Etc. Souter did all of those things and he sucks.

Touché, to a point. I have some sympathy with the idea of reaching out beyond elite legal circles. Just last week I noted that I’d love to see a non-lawyer appointed. And, of course, the Ponnuru for Scotus prairie fire was lit by yours truly.

But some of these arguments veer off into anti-intellectualism, which is just a bad place for conservatives to be. Personally, I think conservatives must be the defenders of excellence and standards, even when that is inconvenient to other conservative ends. Several readers have made the case that she may not be that qualified, but she’d be a reliable vote for the more brilliant conservative justices. I’m all for reliable votes. But this borders on a celebration of hackery and I’m unsympathetic to that.

It is reminiscent of the 1970 nomination hearings for Nixon’s nominee Judge G. Harold Carswell. Sen. Roman Hruska (R-Nebraska), defended Carswell against the charge that he was “mediocre,” declaring “Even if [Judge Carswell] is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they — a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there.”

Again: Miers might turn out to be great and I’m going to listen to her at the hearings with an open mind. I’m merely addressing some of the weaker arguments from readers.