This excerpt from the
Federalist Paper #76 is so on-the-mark that many of us have probably received it via e-mail in the days since
"my little crony" was nominated to fill O'Connor's seat.
But just in case you want to laugh along with kids in the hall, 1788-style:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . .
". . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
Publius
More fun with historical context: In 1970, Richard Nixon nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Carswell was criticized for having an undistinguished record, which led Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska to offer this defense,
"Even if he was mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. 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."
So, there's the argument on which the administration can pin its hopes: Even if Miers is an "obsequious instrument" of the President's pleasure, don't the obsequious instruments of America deserve representation on the Supreme Court?