Is Miers Pro-Wife?

OpinionJournal ^ | October 18, 2005 | James Taranto

[BenLurkin]

That might explain the support she is getting from certain female democrat senators.

[Racehorse]

;-)

Maybe once upon a time.

[Alia]

I don't find it odd. I find it to be quite the character qualification I'd be looking for in a female SCOTUS member. Meaning, she wouldn't play "girlfriend" games with the wives (or husbands, should it apply) of the "connected" in order to get at information to "harm" the "connected". Meaning, Harriet Miers is a professional and has principles.

Can you imagine if at an event, the wife revealed that John wore boxers with hearts on 'em, and Harriet made sure this data went to opponents of John Roberts? "Girlgames". Blech. I hate 'em. I want a professional in the job of SCOTUS, not some flinty little bit of gust playing "feminist politics".

Meaning? The personal is NOT political. Oh thank God should that day come when we see an end to that one.

[Digger]

I just wish we could depend on a Judicial record instead of past questionnaires, friends or acquaintances.

NO. You must TRUST GW, not the people or a record. No trust someone who stated that he looked in Puttin's eyes & knew he could deal with him. Yea, put your trust in that!

[Cboldt]

It's on a par with trusting a dog not to eat your fruit salad.

LOL. Beware - some dogs will eat fruit ;-)

[trisham]

It's on a par with trusting a dog not to eat your fruit salad.

*****************

So far, fruit salad is the only thing my dogs won't eat. It could be simply that they've never had a chance, since I don't eat it.

They'll even eat plain lettuce.

[Cicero]

Our dogs love salad. Just the other day one of them snatched an avocado off the kitchen counter and devoured it.

[nosofar]

Law is not molded simply by the votes of judges and justices, but in the power and cogency of written opinions and the philosophy they express, which become the fodder of law-review articles, commentaries, and conference panels, and eventually permeate the classroom teaching that forms the next generation of judges, lawyers and scholars.

Just wanted to emphasize this point. My general sense (not terribly reliably) is that Bush sees Miers as just another vote on the SCOTUS. How effective she might be at pursuading the other justices to her position doesn't enter into it. I liked Roberts, on the other hand, because of this potential on his part. Maybe that's the idea. Put the burden of pursuasion solely on Roberts. Dumb idea if it is.