Replies

I've taken the time to read your sources except for the one you asterisked, in that I could not find the relevant link. If taken at face value, I can see where you believe she leans left of your position. I will say this, I too believe that if all things are equal, women should not be paid less just because they are women. That does not mean that I support affirmative action in hiring or pay. I am a victim of such affirmative action, by the way. Perhaps there is more behind Miers’ words in this regard but it would have to be a suspicion not a given.

There should not be any doubt that self-esteem, poverty and living conditions impact behavior and by extension, crime in a negative way. That is not to say that they are the only factors. There are those who live in hellish conditions yet choose to follow the law. They are some of my heroes. The 1992 article sounds rather benign for the era.

Is the suspicion of Miers’ statements on equality and poverty really a bundle of unexamined prejudices?

I have little respect for SMU and that report, if taken at face value, is the strongest argument against her qualifications because of an alleged passivity trait. For me, that is somewhat offset by evidence of her being the behind the scene warrior tweaking the liberal Senates noses with continued renomination of conservative judges.

I would go on but it is clear that your SCOTUS appointment would need to be an outspoken conservative activist. Not that I am opposed to many such advocates. I just don’t believe that is absolutely required to be an effective conservative judge. Or even an effective conservative.

Each of those things, taken in isolation from the rest, could possibly be excused one way or the other, as some misunderstanding, or out-of-context opinion, or even as a forgivable exception to a generally conservative outlook. But taken together, and given the absence of publicly stated opinions in a conservative direction (boxes checked on questionnaires put out by political pressure groups during a political campaign notwithstanding), it paints a picture of a woman who either has mostly liberal political leanings, or no clear political convictions at all. Experience tells us that this is not likely to be consistent with a justice who has a strong commitment to reading the Constitution only for what it says. It suggests to me instead that she'll be swayable by fashionable opinion, just as her would-be predecessor, Justice O'Connor, was.

(by the way, about the link you were unable to find on that page, did you see the yellow section at the right, with her picture at the top?)