The above image is from a survey Harriet Miers filled out when running for Dallas city council. The survey was given by Texans United for Life, a pro-life organization. The rest of the questionnairre has other clear indicators that Miers was very much pro-life in 1989, even to the point of wishing for a Human Life Amendment in the constitution to proscribe abortion. Anyone who thinks that it's still up in the air whether or not Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is kidding themselves. And from the right's point of view, that seems to be her one qualification. (via the gleaner)

I found a picture of Bush wearing a shirt that was given to him by Harriet Miers for his birthday in 1998.

Update: New visitors: yes, I fabricated this. Check out the main blog.

Dear Bush: "You are the best governor ever..." Best, Harriet Miers. That's a real quote -- click the link to see more cloying quotes from the New York Times.

OK, so she's not exactly qualified for the Supreme Court, and the nomination does smack of cronyism, but I'm beginning to think that some of the criticism is encroaching upon sexism. Take the apocryphal Harriet Miers blog, which portrays her as a bubbly idiot lacking self-esteem and obsessed with fame. My guess is that if a male with her qualifications was nominated, we wouldn't see anything like this blog linked to from major blogs and news sources (even if as a joke). There's something about her being underqualified and being a woman that leads to this sort of ditzy humor.

Laura Bush has also suggested that sexism might be in play here, but I think she's responding to all claims of Mier's lack of qualifications. I won't go that far -- I do think she's underqualified, and I see no problem with the media hammering that point -- but by simultaneously mocking her girlish language, even if the intentions are benign, the accusation of sexism begins to accrue merit. This would be harmless if the jokes were confined to late-night television and flippant blogs, but problems arise when the mainstream media jumps on the bandwagon. If Miers's confirmation does get defeated, it will be interesting to see how historians explain the causes ten years from now.

One last thing: I myself am torn on whether or not I want Miers to be confirmed. On the one hand -- consider it my idealist hand -- I want her to be defeated because her presence on the court will likely aggravate the bitter divide that already haunts the court, and because she'll likely vote for the Bush agenda without pause. On the other hand -- my practical hand -- her getting confirmed is the least bad option, since she may prove to be an inneffective advocate in swaying the opinions of other justices, and a more qualified nominee, say an intellectual powerhorse such as Roberts, will vote similarly and be a better persuader.

I was disappointed to read in Slate today that Roberts will not be wearing Rehnquist's trademark gold stripes on the sleeves of his chiefly robe. Whatever happened to the idea of the justice-cum-superhero? How else will he proclaim his supreme power over the other eight justices? Roberts, you're too damn humble.

In other news, Bush nominated Harriet Miers today to replace Justice O'Connor. I'm pleased to see that she's not an Ivy-leaguer with the pre-approved institutionalist stamp, but so far there's little reason to think that she's qualified for one of the most intellectual posts in the nation. We know nothing about her except that she's a workaholic who has been loyal to Bush. I'm looking forward to the hearings much more than I was for Roberts.