Excellent point, though I think Gonzales is W's Meese, as you've pointed out. He was blackballed by the same folks who are wigging out now.

I really do not like this pick, but understand it for the reasons you describe. The conservative pundits flatter themselves if they think W wants to stick it to them with this pick for being mean to Gonzo. He has bigger fish to fry than to get back at Ann Coulter, for gosh sake.

Hopefully Viet Dinh will turn 40 about the day Stephens and Ginsburg retire.

Who, by the way, is painting Miers as Church Lady? Yeah, "conservatives".

OJ, you're right, we are stupid.

Let's not forget Reagan's first pick to after Bork went down in flames: Douglas Ginsberg. The proto-Souter. Which makes me wonder what sort of scary second pick Bush will have if Miers does go down.

It used to be the Stupid Party was limited to leadership positions like Congress-critters, Governors and such, but these days everyone wants to qualify.

Gonzales.

Bush knows his Hoffer.

oj:

Agree with your analysis, but Reagan's pick would have been Bill Clark, as it was when he appointed Clark to the California Supreme Court.

Harriet Souter for SCOTUS Church Lady.

Nah, Clark was chosen when competence was required, not ideology.

Now that they've spent 72 hours tearing at the draperies and rendering the furniture over at The Corner, some people there are finally starting to figure this out, though the anger is still there about the need to select a Miers in the first place.

There is the difference that, when Bork was nominated, the Democrats were in the majority and controlled the chamber. You would think that would make a difference.

It's gone totally bonkers on the Corner. Now K-Lo is worried about Miers and...Title IX.

Once Miers brings down Roe by sweet-talking Kennedy into a 5-4 majority, I think K-Lo will allow herself a small smile. I'll be p.o.ed, but I'm already pretty depressed about the nomination.

By the way, I always thought Noonan herself was the Weird Jesus Lady. A case of projection?

David:

Why? There were still Southern Democrats then and they were way more conservative than most Republicans.

You mean like Howell Heflin, the great Bloviator from Alabama who probably did more to torpedo Bork by coming about against him that Ted Kennedy could ever have done?

Because it was made a party-loyalty test in the run-up to '88.

Bork torpedoed himself by answering the questions as if the American people wanted a legal education.

Bork torpedoed himself

Absolutely.

Bork torpedoed himself by not shaving.

Curious: When I wrote my original post on Miers, I said that her being a "church lady" -- and I used that very phrase -- would be a big plus. Maybe I should have added "outside Washington, D. C."

Maybe Noonan and I can make a deal. I won't write speeches if she promises not to do political analysis.

(Here's my post, if you are curious.)

A degree in mathematics? Didn't know that. Make the Miers-is-dumb arguments on the Corner look even dumber.

Th real argument against Miers is that she'll overturn Roe. That's an argument the Cornerites can't make, because they supposedly want Roe overturned. So instead they resort to all these idiotic snipings, like Miers is a closet Gloria Steinem because of a lecture series at SMU she apparently had very little to so with. This "argument" winds up with a comment from a fellow SMU-er that Miers is "very conservative," which certainly furthers the faux-Steinem case.

It's hard to believe the Cornerites could be this brain-dead. But I'm starting to wonder if the Corner's real unease isn't EXACTLY the realization that Miers will overturn Roe. Once Roe is gone all hades breaks loose as the wild-eyed Repub evangelicals try to outlaw every abortion everywhere. Maybe some of the saner types on the Corner realize how mauch that could hurt the conservative cause.

Not sane. Anti-life.

Ann Richards spoke at that lecture series. If Miers had anything to do with the administration of it, would Ann Richards have spoken? Obviously not. The President beat her like a drum for governor. Not to mention the "poor George" speech in 1988. Miers raised money to honor someone and the radical feminists hijacked it. Sad but all too common in the academy.

It's a speech series--why wouldn't you invite different people?

Okay, anti-life or whatever you want to call them. But it baffled me why K-Lo, a pro-lifer to end all pro-lifers, would be so opposed to Miers...a pro-lifer to end all pro-lifers.

At least, it baffled me until I realized that maybe K-Lo has thought about what might happen if Roe was actually reversed.

Right now K-Lo has an easy time of it. She can argue for late-term abortion bans or snitch laws or other little changes. This makes her look very reasonable and non-threatening compared to liberals with their last-ditch defense of every single abortion.

If Roe falls, suddenly K-Lo and other pro-lifers have to decide whether to push for laws banning all abortions. If they follow the logic of their position, even first-trimester abortions would be illegal.

Uh, oh. This position starts to look as extreme and threatening as the current every-abortion-is-wonderful position the Dems are locked into.

I don't think K-Lo really wants that problem. She might have had the problem with, say, Luttig or McConnell, though neither has anything like Miers' pro-life paper trail. She's much more likely to have the problem with Miers.

Miers is an evangelical. K-Lo wanted another Catholic.

Would NRO have gone this wild (for slightly different reasons, of course) if Bush nominated Roy Moore?

jim:

Jeff Sessions would be the great one.