Bring on the parade of mediocrities

The presidential election of 2000 came down to the 25 electoral votes of the state of Florida.

The day after the election, the Florida Division of Elections reported Republican George W. Bush had won by 1,784 votes. Because that margin was so slim, state statute required a machine recount. On Nov. 10, Mr. Bush's margin was reported at a reduced 327 votes.

Attorneys representing Democratic candidate Al Gore wanted more recounts, but Florida state law set a firm deadline by which the Florida secretary of state was required to declare a winner.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that additional recounts were not proper. The Florida secretary of state duly named Mr. Bush the winner.

The New York Times and other media that favored Mr. Gore sent reporters to determine whether Mr. Gore might have won, had the recounts proceeded. In the Nov. 12, 2001, editions of The New York Times, Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder concluded, "Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore."

Nonetheless, many in the Democratic party continue to embrace the animating myth that George W. Bush was not elected president in 2000, but rather was "appointed" by the Supreme Court, at the behest of the Washington attorney who argued his case there, Theodore B. Olson.

This week, Alberto Gonzales stepped down as U.S. attorney general, effectively hounded out of office by Democratic senators who demanded that he explain why he had fired eight regional U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president. (Their own Democratic Attorney General, Janet Reno, fired 93.) Prominently mentioned as a possible replacement has been the current solicitor general of the United States ... Theodore B. Olson.

Cynics have long suspected that the senators no longer stage hearings for the purpose of gathering new information about presidential nominees -- that the process has degenerated into a political Kabuki of posing, speechifying and attempted ambush.

Nevada's own Sen. Harry Reid, now majority leader, pretty much confirmed that Wednesday, responding to rumors of a likely Olson nomination by stating, "Ted Olson will not be confirmed. I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general."

No hearings necessary.

Is it likely Sen. Reid feels Mr. Olson's law degree from the University of California, Berkeley -- where he was a member of the Law Review -- is substandard? That Mr. Olson lacks a firm grasp of the Constitution after arguing numerous constitutional cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including cases involving federal securities regulation, antitrust, the environment, school vouchers, the Internet, the 2000 Census, property rights, punitive damages, criminal law, immigration, the right to a jury trial, due process, voting rights, equal protection, separation of powers, the ex post facto clause, and the speech, press and religion clauses of the First Amendment?

No. What Sen. Reid means is that he believes he has enough Democratic votes in the Senate to prevent President Bush from appointing a superbly qualified Cabinet member solely because Mr. Olson has argued Republican causes, because he shares some of the core political philosophies of Mr. Bush and his predecessor Ronald Reagan, because Mr. Bush knows him and would consider him a trusted adviser.

What is the long-term result of a such a stance? Ask anyone knowledgeable on the subject to name the nine most eminent constitutional scholars in this nation. Then compare those lists to a roster of the current U.S. Supreme Court. Why do so few names -- if any -- show up on both lists? Because the appointment process has become so viciously partisan that only nonentities of no particular philosophical distinction -- no "written trail" -- are now likely to slip through the Senate gantlet.

Such mediocrities are then praised as "moderates," meaning they owe allegiance to no particular political philosophy -- most especially not that of the Founding Fathers.

One has to wonder whose interests this serves.