Boy, this Miers thing sure is putting me on the opposite side of the fence from a lot of bloggers I like. The latest: PoliPundit, who purports to shoot down one argument against Miers with this reasoning:

2. Miers isn’t the best-qualified person.

This matters not a whit. Ideology trumps all. If a mangy yellow dog were the SCOTUS nominee, I’d support it, if it would consistently vote with Scalia-Thomas.

Wow. I couldn’t disagree more. To me, ideology does not trump all. I am an idealistic adherent to the rule of law, as John Roberts portrayed himself in his confirmation hearings. I believe that the Constitution means what it says, and should not be treated as a warrant for creating whatever rights are deemed necessary by philosopher-kings in black robes.

To the extent that Polipundit means “ideology” in the “rule of law” sense I have just described, I could at least understand that sentiment — though I still disagree with his suggestion that merit is irrelevant. I am a great admirer of Justices Scalia and Thomas. I certainly want to see their positions get more votes. When I was on Pundit Review Radio, I said I’d like nothing better than to clone these two Justices and pack the Court with the clones. (I’d probably have 5 Thomas clones and 4 Scalia clones, but I wouldn’t sneeze at the reverse.)

But the reason that we want to see more votes for the positions of Scalia and Thomas is because these Justices and their positions have such great persuasive force — because they have merit, and because their points of view are well thought-out.

And guess what? No two Justices always vote alike. Indeed, one fairly recent analysis showed that Scalia and Thomas voted together only 73% of the time — a “togetherness” rate that was lower than that of six other pairs (Souter-Ginsburg, Rehnquist-O’Connor, Rehnquist-Kennedy, Stevens-Souter, Ginsburg-Breyer, and Stevens-Ginsburg).

And each of these Justices sometimes goes it alone.

So they’re more independent than PoliPundit seems to realize. You’ll never find someone who votes with Scalia and Thomas even 90% of the time — because they don’t vote with each other anywhere near that often.

And — even assuming Miers votes with Scalia and Thomas a lot — it’s an open question how she will vote when she isn’t voting with them. Will she take a boneheaded conservative position that is at odds with the Constitution — like Rehnquist did in Texas v. Johnson when he voted to uphold laws against flag-burning with a completely unpersuasive “just because” line of reasoning? Will she take weaselly middle-of-the-road positions like the Justices she is being compared to, like O’Connor and Powell?

We have no idea. And we don’t even have the consolation that she is one of the very top legal minds in the country.

Not good.

P.S. I hear a lot of people saying that opposition to Miers on grounds of poor qualifications is “elitist.” I disagree. I allude in the post to the fact that, historically, judges with similar qualifications (such as O’Connor, Powell, and White) have been erratic, inconsistent, and often (though not so much with White) baby-splitters. I just don’t want any more Justices like that. It’s not that her qualifications are way out of line with those of past Justices. It’s that they are out of line with the sort of Justice I’d like to see. It’s that simple.