The dubious value of "brilliant"

Thomas Lifson notes:

There is also a palpable hunger for a struggle to the death with hated and verbally facile liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer. Having seen that a brilliant conservative legal thinker with impeccable elite credentials can humble the most officious voices of the Judiciary Committee, they demand a replay. Thus we hear conservatives sniffing that a Southern Methodist University legal education is just too non-Ivy League, adopting a characteristic trope of blue state elitists. We hear conservatives bemoaning a lack of judicial experience, and not a single law review article in the last decade as evidence of a second rate mind.

Well said!

I hate elitism and this jihad against Harriet Miers from the right just screams elitism.

Speaking that, I just listened to Prof. Bainbridge on the Hugh Hewitt Show define his desire for a "brilliant conservative movement lawyer who can handle the Supreme Court." He's says the Supreme Court is the Big Leagues, as if to say that if you'd only played in Dallas, you can't play. He's bothered that she's not a Federalist Society member. He seems to be taking the word of David Frum and James Pinkerton over that of George Bush. This whole discussion just confirms my feelings that the criticisms are based on elitism more than anything else. The continued assertion that she doesn't have a "brilliant legal mind," just baffles me. Where do they get that? Does O'Connor have a brilliant legal mind? Does Thomas? I'd say no in both cases. There are not that many principles underlying the Constitution. I think it's the "briiliant legal minds" who chafe at just applying those principles and want to show off their brilliance who end up screwing up the law. It takes a good mind to drill through the phony arguments like those used to justify Roe v. Wade and to cut through the sophistry, the "penumbrae" and analyses of foreign jurisprudence and point out the correct constitutional principles. The brilliance of John Roberts was that he could say simply, "This is a policy issue and it is not our role to set policy or overrule the the legislative branch, so long as it does not clearly violate the Constitution."

It's a fine point but an important one whether you start with the Constitution and apply it or you start with a desired result and then justify it with "brilliant" legal reasoning. Frankly, I don't trust the "brilliant legal minds" on everything, because they're often wrong, but they dress it up and mislead a lot of people. "Brilliant" minds find it easy to decide that the people don't know what they're doing and need to be overruled. A "brilliant" mind too often lacks humility.