I Hate to Post Something and Not Try to be Funny

But I'm going to make an exception and do it here. The subject is the recent nomination for the Supreme Court. There has been a pretty incredible negative reaction from the right on this nomination. Much of it has centered on the nominees education and her experience. Much of the rest has centered on the president`s reasons for picking her; and these have said he did it out of weakness.

But perhaps there is another reason he picked her, and you have no idea how much it pains me to say this, maybe he thought that she would add a missing dimension to the court, would be a good judge herself and make the court better by her presence.

Much of the criticism of her is nothing but "credentialism" in my opinion. Other, more reasoned criticism claims she will not be able to write scholarly opinions. I'm not sure that any of us know if that is true. I am positive that it won't necessarily prevent her from being a great judge.

Being a great judge, or a great anything, isn't a simple thing. It doesn't have clear objective parameters we can use to predict it. If it did, they would be used. People lacking in one dimension can compensate in another. Likewise, people very strong in one way can ignore other aspects of their role and fail.

We will know a lot more after her confirmation hearings. Hopefully we will know enough that we can be comfortable with whatever decision comes from the senate. What I find appaling is that I suspect many of the people whining the loudest now are people who were whining the loudest about the Democrats not being willing to give Judge Roberts a chance to testify before criticizing him. Now they are doing exactly the same thing themselves.

Some of the things they are saying are positively shocking. And some of the people should perhaps read and think about what they writing. They should know better. Can you hear me George Will?