A couple of days after the Miers nomination announcement, the fulminations from the Right have remained unrelenting. George Will has a much-linked column on the Washington post that is a must-read, if just to see the depths of bad faith which even he has gone into.

Dear Conservative, and moderate Republican friends, we have strayed into liberal territory. I have not seen the kind of dismissive, baseless, shooting-from-the-hip writing from my rightwing brethren as I have in the past few days.

Two sources I’m citing in this post both came from Instapundit. First, Orin Kerr quotes another guy (gosh that’s a lot of hops, ya?) picking apart George Will’s column. Here’s something noteworthy:

Will’s fourth argument is the most dangerous and absurd. He suggests Miers shouldn’t be approved because she hasn’t shown a “talent” for “constitutional reasoning” honed through years of “intense interest” and practice. Judging takes work, but the folks who think “constitutional reasoning” is a talent requiring divination, intense effort and years of monastic study are the same folks who will inevitably give you “Lemon tests,” balancing formulas, “penumbras” and concurrences that make your head spin. The President sees through that mumbo jumbo and recognizes that good Justices are the ones who focus on the Constitution’s text, structure and history and who call balls and strikes. Bush is in favor of demystifying the Court and the Miers choice is part of that effort. Will seems to be buying into the “Nine Wisest Men” mythology that is a root cause of the Court’s aggrandizement of power over time.

There has been plenty of whining among anti-Miers folks that she has not a monolothic intellect. Since when, then, has conservatism been an intellectually highfalutin’endeavor? Want an intellectual with a conservative record? Souter. I can say Souter again, and again, and again. Souter has become quite the liberal despite the rock-solid conservative voting record he has shown in the past.

I’m not a judiciary junkie, but I will say this of people who go for larger and larger “monolithic intellects:” you dont’have to look further than your garden variety university professor who, in his self-imposed isolation and hubris and arrogance with respect to his own intellectual prowess, comes out with the most outrageous opinions we have ever heard. Want a monolithic intellect? There’s always Noam Chomsky, ya?

I hate to break this to everyone, but there is one thing that liberals get right: conservatism is a position that doesn’t take too much thinking to take. No, conservatives are not stupid, as a lot on the left would like to believe. Conservatives, however, do not need multiple layers of intellectual nuance to let out a rationale. Monolithic intellects dreamed up the penumbras and emanations in a constitution, folks. Let’s just keep that in mind.

Lastly, my fellow conservatives have exposed themselves as just as equally guilty of demanding that a conservative agenda be pushed by a judge. As my friend rhesagirl says quite clearly:

What amuses me are the claims conservatives have been making during the hearings for the Supreme Court justice nominations for the past several months. On one hand, they want a justice who is a “constitutionalist.” On the other hand, they want a justice who might even overturn Roe v. Wade someday and, you know, make judicial decisions based on conservative values. Those two prerequisites are different from each other, yo – think about it. A constitutionalist justice does not depend on any set of values, liberal or conservative, to interpret the Constitution – he depends on the Constitution, and maybe precedent. When that justice decides to use a conservative worldview of any stripe to interpret the laws of the land, then it becomes politics. That’s where judicial activism begins and true jurisprudence ends.

And that, as they say, is that. I’m looking forward to Harriet Miers tear ‘em up at the hearings.