thinks that I am “ordinarily reliable” but have not answered Doug Kmiec’s central point: viz., that Miers is, like Roberts, a “steadfast adherent[] to a judicial ethic of no personally imposed points of view. The cognoscenti snicker when the president reaffirms his criterion of judges who will shun legislating from the bench, since to legal realists, it is inconceivable and to political ideologues it is a missed opportunity. They all do, they all will, goes the refrain. To which Roberts repeatedly answered: No, not this umpire. The same answer can be expected from Miers as she makes her bid to join the officiating crew.”

Hewitt writes: “The refusal of Ponnuru to engage Kmiec’s central argument about the nature of the battle between results-oriented conservatives and the Roberts-Miers approach doesn’t decide the merits of Kmeic’s argument, but it does reveal that some of the critics of Miers aren’t prepared to answer the charge that their criticism is more disappointment that their own preferred nominee was not selected than serious argument that Miers is a Souter of some sort.”

Well. I didn’t engage Kmiec’s “central argument” because it isn’t an argument. It’s an assertion. If I saw persuasive evidence that Miers is a “steadfast adherent” to that ethic–and is willing and able to draw out the implications in practice of such an ethic–I’d be supporting her. That’s a lot of what the argument is about. I’m not sure what Hewitt means by referring to “results-oriented conservatives.” The concept, very far from being part of Kmiec’s “central argument,” is absent from his op-ed. If he wants to say that I’m one of them, he ought to cite chapter and verse.

Hewitt also criticizes me for “mock[ing]” Kmiec. Conservatives are supposed to treat one another’s arguments respectfully. Well, okay, but Hewitt’s post is titled “The Big Sulk.” And it gets worse.

He goes on to write: “Conservative opposition or contingent approval was reflexive, and disappointing. Because they did not know her, they assumed she could not be worth supporting. The cronyism of the chattering class seems to have triumphed over any kind of analysis or credit-according the sort of experiences that ordinary Americans value. . . . Taking the ball and going home because the nominee doesn’t know you by your first name is hardly principle at work, and the refusal to see what she brings to the table isn’t argument. It is entertaining, and also a sort of wish for a return to the days of old when the president was a Democrat and brick throwing made life as a pundit easy.”

I strongly supported John Roberts’s nomination without ever having met the man. I would have strongly supported Edith Clement or Michael McConnell, neither of whom would know me from Dinesh D’Souza. Hewitt is, in this case, the one who is caricaturing his opponents, speculating about their subconscious motives, etc. I think Hewitt is supporting Miers because, reasoning in good faith and with sound mind, he reaches different conclusions from me. It would be nice if he would extend me, along with like-minded conservatives, the same courtesy.

(Hat tip: Professor Bainbridge.)