Miss Meirs Again

Two folks took issue, not to say umbrage, with my, shall we say, skepticism yesterday regarding the proposed appointment of Miss Meirs to the Supreme Court. Both cited Hugh Hewitt's blog as a worthy defense of the appointment.

In the first place, thanks very much for the citation. I'm always delighted and flattered when anyone gives a tinker's dam what I think about anything. But, alas, I remain skeptical and unconvinced. He had quite a bit to say about it and more today. You can read it at the link above. So far as I can tell, though, it boils down to "trust the president". This is probably a good enough argument for Mr Hewitt because he trusts the president anyway. He voted for him and campaigned for him. I did neither. (Although I certainly didn't vote for the ghastly John Kerry, either. In case you were wondering.) I don't trust President Bush and I see no reason to make an exception in this case.

The woman does appear to be pro-life. This is very good. But according to the Times this morning, one of her closest friends says her convictions will not cause her to overturn Roe v. Wade. So what are her pro-life convictions worth? Some of the most consistent anti-life legislators claim to be "personally opposed" to abortion.

From the Times article:

Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers is personally opposed to abortion, her longtime companion said Tuesday, but he added that doesn't mean she will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Nathan L. Hecht, a Texas Supreme Court justice, has been a close companion of Miers since they first worked together for a Dallas law firm 30 years ago. His comments are the clearest indication to date of Miers' view on abortion — which, as with other issues she would be likely to face on the high court, is unknown.

. . . . .

"Harriet goes to a church that is pro-life. She has for 25 years," he said. "She gives them a lot of money. Her personal views lie in that direction."

But when asked if her personal opposition to abortion would give her sufficient cause to overturn the Supreme Court's abortion precedent, Hecht said, "I think she'll say they won't."

And about the other social issues that have been raised? No comment it seems.


For a superb essay on the inadvisability of this nomination, I suggest George Will's latest column. It's located several places on the web. The Washington Post has it here.