Truth in Advertising

WaPo columnist Richard Cohen invents the single most idiotic reason to oppose John Roberts:

I sometimes think the best thing that ever happened to me was, at the time, the worst: I flunked out of college. I did so for the usual reasons -- painfully bored with school and distracted by life itself -- and so I went to work for an insurance company while I plowed ahead at night school. From there I went into the Army, emerging with a storehouse of anecdotes. In retrospect, I learned more by failing than I ever would have by succeeding. I wish that John Roberts had a touch of my incompetence.

Instead, the nominee for chief justice of the United States punched every career ticket right on schedule. He was raised in affluence, educated in private schools, dispatched to Harvard and then to Harvard Law School. He clerked for a U.S. appellate judge (the storied Henry J. Friendly) and later for William H. Rehnquist, then an associate justice. Roberts worked in the Justice Department and then in the White House until moving on to Hogan & Hartson, one of Washington's most prestigious law firms; then he was principal deputy solicitor general, before moving to the bench, where he has served for only two years. His record is appallingly free of failure. . .

[W]hen it comes to civil rights, to women's rights, to workers' rights, to gay rights and to the plight of the poor, I would prefer that Roberts had had his moment of failure.

Cohen don't know much about history:

Back in 1970, President Richard Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell of Florida to the Supreme Court, fresh off the Senate’s rejection of South Carolina’s Clement Haynesworth, who was the first high-court nominee to be given the thumbs down since the 1930s.

A study done by Columbia Law School students found that Carswell, a Court of Appeals judge on the Fifth Circuit, had been reversed an outrageous 58 percent of the time during his years in his prior position as a federal district court judge. It was information like this that allowed his opponents to tag him as “mediocre.”

Nebraska Republican Sen. Roman Hruska then made his most famous dive into the history books with his famous “in defense of mediocrity” speech:

“Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers,” Hruska told reporters outside the Senate chamber. “They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.” Despite such a ringing endorsement of a schmo for the nation’s highest court, the Senate voted down Carswell’s nomination 51-45, with 13 Republicans crossing the aisle.

First they complain about mediocrity, then they embrace it. Democrats: make up your minds! Shouldn't we employ a higher standard for Supreme Court nominations than the Washington Post applies to its editorial pages?

More:

American Thinker:

[W]ho would be Cohen’s ideal appointment to Chief Justice? How about Ted Kennedy? Let’s see, a dropout and plagiarist, alcoholic, skirt chaser and probable vehicular homicide driver? He has learned life's lessons.

If Cohen really believes this theory, then he should stop criticizing Bush policy in Iraq for its supposed mistakes. After all, we have had plenty of learning experiences there, and now are much better for it.

(via Betsy's Page)