[sinkspur]

A more apt analogy would be a member of the College of Cardinals who was eligible to be selected as the next pontiff, but who had spent sixty years of his life desperately avoiding comment on any controversial doctrinal issue.

You're on my turf now. Joseph Ratzinger was deemed, by the media and most Catholic commentators and by me, frankly, as too old, at 78, to be elected to the papacy. He was written off prior to the conclave.

Ratzinger was also typed as a stuffy old fuddy-duddy, doctrinally conservative, and ready to roll back Vatican II.

He has proven to be totally opposite of the dire forecasts. He is open, he listens, he is a focused, polished speaker, and has, as his first priority, Jesus' mandate that "they all may be one," that is, the reunion of Christian Churches.

Ratzinger was an inspired choice for pope, and, I believe, Miers is an inspired choice for the Supreme Court.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

But Ratzinger had a clearly delineated-almost overpowering-philosophy.

No one was questioning his credentials to be the vicar of Christ.

No one was scratching their heads, wondering what fundamental beliefs he valued above others, even if there were debates over what specific policies he might implement during his pontificate.

Harriet Miers is a blank slate.

A question mark.

This is not how you go about reshaping the Supreme Court.