[Kryptonite]

But that's just the thing. You cannot separate the Holding from the Opinion, or the Opinion from the penumbras.

Remove the penumbras and the Opinion has no justification and thus the Holding does not hold.

You're confusing even yourself. You're telling me that I cannot separate the holding from the opinion. Miers can easily agree that married people have a right to use contraception by adopting the same position as that established by concurrence. I want to respect your opinion but cannot.

I agree that she was a politician. The same Federalist Society people that she was dissing in her testimony under oath are now working with the White House to confirm her.

[counterpunch]

You're telling me that I cannot separate the holding from the opinion. Miers can easily agree that married people have a right to use contraception by adopting the same position as that established by concurrence.

Ah, but you make my original point!
Both Court Opinion and Concurrence cast the same vote. But only one of them can withstand the test of time. The poorly considered Opinion can be more easily overturned eventually, and yet it leaves a trail of bad law in its wake nonetheless.

So now tell me, what is more important, votes, or Opinions?
Miers may give the votes, but will her Opinions be written clearly or argued incisively? From the look of her past writing, the answer is "no." Will her opinions withstand the test of time? Will they enlighten minds and inform law? Will her Opinions help navigate back to a federalist Constitution? Or will her Opinions only further muddle Constitutional interpretation and set the foundation for still more poorly considered bad law?