Elitism is at the core of the Anti-Mier voices....Bork proves it

Judge Robert H. Bork, who talked his way out of a seat on the U.S. Supreme court (by that I mean he droned on and on for hours about the intricacies of his judicial values) has now talked himself off my list of favorite conservatives. His commentary today in the Opinion Journal lets the entire world know that the power behind the conservative anti-Miers voices is elitism. By that I mean to say that Bork, and other conservatives.......John Fund, Laura Ingraham, George Will.......think that only a person with a certain level (determined by them of course) of constitutional law practice in their background is qualified to sit on the Supreme court.

Bork says that President Bush has......."taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars".......meaning that all these scholars (I'm sure he could give us a list of names.......himself included) have worked so hard to get on the supreme court just to have their hopes dashed by the appointment of this..............this...............nobody.

According to Bork Harriet Miers "has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy". I guess he must not know that for the past five years Ms. Miers has worked closely with Bush on every single judicial appointment he has made. Those appointments include assessing the constitutional values of each nominee. Do you suppose that Bush and Miers ever discussed what her values are? Nah........it couldn't be that easy.

He says that "The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic", and on that note I must agree with him. If I were Bush I'd come right out and say "It's my choice to make and I made it............and frankly Miers has more common sense than Bork could ever hope to have".

But the thing that really turned me off about Bork's comments was when he called us (Miers appointment supporters) "moderate (i.e. lukewarm) conservatives". Those are fighting words and Bork deserves to have the smirk wiped right off his wild whiskered face.

The supreme court does need constitutional law experts as justices; currently there are nine of them. But it also needs people who by God's grace are given generous portion of reality based common sense

For instance......Are the words "One nation under God" in the Pledge unconstitutional? Duh.........NO!! Is there a "right to privacy" that allows the indiscriminate killing of unborn babies? WHAT?..........OF COURSE NOT!!! Can a city take your house and give it to another person so higher taxes are paid on it? GET REAL AND GET OUT OF HERE. NEXT CASE

How would Bork answer those questions? I'll never know because I'd fall asleep listening to the answers.

**UPDATE** The list of my favorite conservatives is growing shorter by the minute. Today Ann Coulter uses her guillotine in to chop the head off the "Common Sense" is good for the Supreme Court argument for Harriet Miers (read the commentary here). She claims "It was 'common sense' to allow married couples to buy contraception in Connecticut. That was a decision an randomly selected group of nine good bowlers might well hav concurred with on the grounds that, 'well, it's just common sense, isn't it?".

I'm guessing that Ms. Coulter's mind can't allow for the fact that common sense would say "isn't that the state's call" to the examples she gives. Clearly she has imputed to common sense the foul deeds of agenda driven judges.