Replies

This time, a 60-year, post-menopausal female who has chosen never to marry, never to have a family and, instead, work long hours devoted to a law firm. Surely, this must tell us something of her life priorities. Is this not relevant in divining her predictable policy preferences?

Once again............what if it was GOD'S WILL for her to be single, like it was for the Apostle Paul?

Or is it just your misogyny peeking out, winston? Is it only women who have to be married to be trustworthy? Paul was OK being single because it was God's choice for his life? But Harriet will be a bad judge because she is single?

Is that how it works?

WC: This time, a 60-year, post-menopausal female who has chosen never to marry, never to have a family and, instead, work long hours devoted to a law firm. Surely, this must tell us something of her life priorities. Is this not relevant in divining her predictable policy preferences?

OWF: Once again............what if it was GOD'S WILL for her to be single, like it was for the Apostle Paul? Or is it just your misogyny peeking out, winston? Is it only women who have to be married to be trustworthy? Paul was OK being single because it was God's choice for his life? But Harriet will be a bad judge because she is single? Is that how it works?

Two points.

First, there is no evidence -- zero -- that this woman is a Christian -- let alone that she made a choice to remain single to better serve Christ -- Paul's purpose. Your Chistian analogy to the Apostle Paul is inapposite.

However, even assuming arguendo that she is a Christian, do we really think that she couldn't find a Christian man to marry? No, she made a conscious choice. Precisely the kind of choice we don't want advanced by the so-called 'policy choices' of the Supreme Court.

Second, at the SC level, we are selecting a 'policymaker' not a 'judge' in the true sense of following precedent. [Since the liberals have set the SC 'precedents' in their policy choices for the last three-quaarters of a century, Heaven help us if we get some faithful 'precedent follower' on the SC!]

Yes, I think some female who has consciously chosen for (apparently) careerist reasons never to marry or have a family would likely produce policy choices very similar to the goofy New Hampshire bachelor (already on the Court) who chose never to marry or have a family.

Once again............what if it was GOD'S WILL for her to be single, like it was for the Apostle Paul? Or is it just your misogyny peeking out, winston? Is it only women who have to be married to be trustworthy? Paul was OK being single because it was God's choice for his life? But Harriet will be a bad judge because she is single?

I agree with you - attacks on Harriet Miers are nonsense. No one is in a position to judge her personal life. Sometimes women do not get married because they are simply not asked. Spreading rumors that she's lesbian is repugnant. My beef is with President Bush, not Harriet Miers, and yes, not everyone is called to marriage.