I like Scully too. And he puts in a solid effort, particularly in the second half. But, ultimately, I find his piece very weak. Yes, it’s all fun to whack credentialists and elitists and people who scan the papers for their names. But his argument boils down to the notion that the Supreme Court may just need someone who pays attention to the little things. Or as Matt puts it: “It may be, in fact, that a details person is just what the Supreme Court needs right now.”

Matt, they have people who pay attention to the little things already, they call them “clerks.”

Scully steals an intellectual base here, that has been stolen a lot lately. By what evidence or logic do we assume that someone who is neat, efficient and detail-oriented will translate those qualities to the bench in terms of her legal opinions? Getting your tax return done early is not a barometer of your political or legal philosophy. Nor is being an excellent hired attorney. Have there been no slobs who were terribly disorganized and non-detail oriented in private practice or private life who were also outstanding judges? Similarly, by what rule of nature or history do we assume that nice people are more inclined to create good law? I’m delighted Miers is of good character, but is there some evidence that jerks make worse justices?

Personally, I think Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. — while brilliant — was nonetheless greatly overrated (An entirely typical rave: Benjamin Cardozo proclaimed “He is today for all students of the law and for all students of human society the philosopher and the seer, the greatest of our age in the domain of jurisprudence, and one of the greatest of the ages”). But, let us stipulate that he was one of the great justices. He was also an unbelievable jerk, with a horribly dark view of life and human nature.

Assuming that personal or even professional traits we admire have their roots philosophical views we share is a mistake we’ve made many, many times before.

Matt’s op-ed seems to be an extention of the “fetching beverages” argument in her favor. She’s nice, humble, decent, professional and circumspect. Therefore, here reading of, say, copyright law will be nice, decent, professional and circumspect. I’m unpersuaded.