Dreamland Puzzles: Do Rhinos Like Thin Mints?

The squeaker has been talking in his sleep lately. Usually he mumbles, but last night he spoke quite clearly: "Cookie. Rhino. Mama. Bed. Mama. Bed."

Yesterday, he had a Thin Mint Girl Scout cookie for the first time. That he enjoyed the cookie was evident, as he uttered a rare three-word phrase upon finishing his cookie: "More cookies please."

And he does like rhinos. He has a plastic "Little Peoples" rhino with a turtle on its back and a small stuffed rhino. Some of his favorite Sandra Boynton books feature rhinos, sometimes snorting and snuffing in a way that might be alarming if they didn't have enormous googly eyes and little rhino smiles.

But I do wonder what was unfolding in his sleepy little head. Was a rhino trying to snatch his girl scout cookies? Did he want to feed a rhino cookies? (He does like to feed animals, and will try to feed passing dogs bits of grass and twigs when we go for walks.) Did he want to retreat to bed with his mama to escape the hungry rhino? Or was mama supposed to send the rhino off to bed for trying to steal the squeaker's cookie?

Impossible to know, I suppose. It's a bit distracting to try to sleep next to someone who is exclaiming about rhinos and cookies in his sleep.

Anyway, today my husband and I celebrate 15 years of friendship. Thanks for being there for me, baby.

The Aging Family Tree

I was having lunch with a co-worker this week and we got to talking about grandparents. She mentioned that she was lucky because until she was nearly finished college, all four of her grandparents were still living. I was a little surprised by her feeling that she was unusual because I wouldn't have thought it particularly notable to have 4 living grandparents in one's early 20s. When I graduated from college, all four of my grandparents were living. I also had a great-grandmother who was living, and who is still living a happy and vibrant life at age 95. (That's the lovely lady in today's pic.)

But that got me thinking about the trend towards late childbearing in this country, and how one of the subtle costs of delaying childbearing until your late 30s, early 40s, or even later is that your children are less likely to become acquainted with the ancestors in their family tree. In the maternal branch of my family tree, generation after generation of women had their first baby around age 20 at the latest. If you're born to a mother who is 20, and she was born to such a young mother, you'll have a 40-year-old grandmother at birth, a 60-year-old great grandmother, and maybe even a great-great grandmother who is still living. But if a woman has her first child at 35, and her mother did the same, and HER mother did the same, the new baby will be lucky to know her grandmother. That grandmother would be 70 at the time of the child's birth.

It seems to me that the cultural forces pushing childbearing so much later in life for so many women may have the effect of undermining the enriching and supportive web of extended family. It's hard for me to imagine my childhood and young adulthood without the affection and perspective that my grandparents and great-grandparents gave me. Certainly there are other ways of establishing relationships between the very young and the elderly -- those relationships don't have to come from one's own relatives. But seeing oneself as part of a larger family tree helps to provide a sense of place in the world. What a pity it would be to see that fade away for the children born today and in the future.

See ya, Harriet

The nomination has been withdrawn in a scenario quite like the one Charles Krauthammer sketched out here, with the stated concern being separation of powers.

So now liberals must sit back and wait for the next nominee. I have a feeling that something wicked this way comes.

The Enemy of My Enemy

...must be my friend, right? So if some crazy right-wingers think Harriet Miers is wrong for the Supreme Court, she can't be too bad for liberals, yes?

NO, NO, NO.

It's true that George Will, Phyllis Schlafly, and Pat Buchanan oppose the nomination of Miers and have called on her withdrawal from consideration. But mostly, this is because she doesn't have a public record that proves her conservative judicial philosophy. They have also expressed concerns about her failure to meet their "standard of excellence" and her "mixed record." The latter is really a wishy-washy reference to her efforts to have the bar association she headed remain neutral on abortion rights and her involvement with women's issues, including her role in a lecture series that included feminist icons and her references to discrimination against women.

Conservatives are unhappy because this Supreme Court nomination was supposed to be the big payoff they've been waiting for. This is why it was so important to them to elect George W. Bush. Eight years of having a GOP president at the helm is nice for them, but the real jewel in the crown is the ability to wrought long-term changes in the legal landscaping by redefining the tenor of the Supreme Court.

Liberals, don't be fooled by the hand-wringing of some conservatives. It is extremely likely that those same conservatives will be delighted by Ms. Miers' judicial philosophy, if she manages to get confirmed. They aren't distressed because there is evidence that she is too liberal or that she does not share their judicial philosophy; they are distressed mostly because there is nothing at this time to prove that she shares their judicial philosophy, and so many other (stronger) candidates have clearly shown themselves to possess and be willing to apply a deeply conservative judicial approach. These conservatives are wary of assurances that a candidate fits what they want without clear proof, perhaps with good historical reason (i.e., Justice Souter).

But there is no reason to think that Miers will be "another Souter," or that her decisions will be any thing other than strict constructionist. And unlike Souter, Miers isn't really an "unknown." Indeed, Bush has said that he chose her because he "knows her heart." That is cold comfort to any liberal who knows the consequences of the kind of judicial approach Bush says he advocates.

Watching conservatives melt down over the Miers nomination may be entertaining to those of us on the left, but we must not mistake their tantrums for evidence that Miers is poses no threat to the values liberals hold dear.

All Creatures Great and Small

The squeaker is obsessed with animals. I've been amazed at how many different animals he can identify. They include:

vulture
penguin
camel
ostrich
cheetah
koala

I think his vocabulary is pretty large for a 20-month old, but I know I am very biased. One of his favorite new phrases is "hold it," meaning "give that to me, I want to hold it." When we took him to the nearby petting farm over the weekend, he darted after the chickens saying "hold it!" We had to explain that the chickens were probably in no mood to be held by a small child anxious to hold them and squeeze them.

Buy Me Something Expensive!

I've been reading some things lately that make me wonder how people, and women in particular, have gotten so absurdly materialistic. Or maybe they always have been, but new trends are just the most current reflection of that tendency.

Specifically, I'm thinking about "push presents," which are gifts a new father gives to the mother of his children as a kind of "reward" for birthing the little one. There is something grotesque to me about making the birth of a baby -- the start of a new life in the world -- an occasion for receiving some luxury item, like expensive jewelry. Shouldn't the experience of becoming a parent -- of seeing a brand new human being take his or her very first breath -- be deeply satisfying by itself? Why cheapen one of life's most spiritual and meaningful experiences by using it as an excuse to get an expensive gift?

I guess I've just never understood the attempt to distill profound human experiences into sparkly material objects. Women who think their engagement or wedding ring needs to be of a particular size or cut because they "deserve it" from a man who "really loves them" baffle me. Such things seem to be to be a small step removed from prostitution -- "if you really love me, you'll pay up! Then you can have me…" That's not to say that I object to using material objects to symbolize certain human experiences, even love or the birth of a new baby. But when the primary concern is not with the symbolism, but rather with the reflection of wealth and luxury, the materialism effectively overwhelms and degrades the emotional experience.

Ode to Freecycle

I've now given a handful of items away through Freecycle, a sort of list serv where people post items, people who want them reply, and then arrangements are made for the receiver to pick the item up. I gave away a few toys that I didn't think were good for the squeaker, and one that he showed no interest in (until about half an hour before the person arrived to pick it up, of course...sigh).

Anyway, I'm amazed that people want some of the junky stuff I've seen on Freecycle. But it will be posted, and a short time later, a second posting will indicate that the items have been taken. Broken appliances, outdated textbooks, old and stained clothing, old bedsheets. I suppose that if you're handy, a broken appliance that you can fix may be a good deal. And maybe people find new uses for some of the old stuff. I just find it hard to believe that people would wear someone else's old and stained clothing, or use someone's worn bedsheets, rather than buying new ones. I'm even a little surprised that people would rather drive to someone else's house to pick up a used toy for free than to spend $10.00 on that toy new. Clearly, I am not in the "Freecycle" mindset yet.

In any case, I'm not complaining. My own closets are now a little roomier, thanks to Freecycle.

You Are My Sunshine

I've been singing "You Are My Sunshine" to the squeaker since he was born (just the first verse, not the broken relationship part). It never seemed that he was paying much attention.

But today, after I sang the first two lines ("You are my sunshine, my only sunshine") and paused, he suddenly chimed in -- "Happy!"

I think it may have been the cutest thing ever.

The Squeaker Loves the Dead

If you ask him what's on his shirt, he'll say simply "Bears." That they are green and yellow and blue does not give him pause at all.

Ever since he was very tiny, he has loved the Grateful Dead. When nothing else would soothe him, we knew it was time to find the Dead CD. There must be something to those rhythms.

Musty Roe and the Right to Privacy

I am not one of those women who believe that men don't have the right to an opinion on abortion. But something about Washington Post writer Richard Cohen's cavalier attitude towards the likely denial of that right in some states, if Roe were to be overturned, really rubbed me the wrong way. Cohen writes:

Conservatives -- and some liberals -- have long argued that the right to an abortion ought to be regulated by states. They have a point. My guess is that the more populous states would legalize it, the smaller ones would not, and most women would be protected. The prospect of some women traveling long distances to secure an abortion does not cheer me -- I'm pro-choice, I repeat -- but it would relieve us all from having to defend a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.

For some women, the "prospect of...traveling long distances to secure an abortion" would effectively translate to a loss of the right to an abortion. Would this be the case only for a very few women? Probably. Would these women be those in the most desperate circumstances? Probably. Those women who choose to seek an abortion because of their precarious financial situation or other severe difficulties would be most likely to find themselves unable to obtain one.

Though I understand Cohen's reasoning, I find it hard to believe that a pro-choice woman would be as quick to find such a scenario a welcome relief from defending musty old Roe.

Harriet Miers and Percy Weasley

What do these two redheads have in common?

Beats me. But someone found my blog by plugging their names into the Google search engine together (thanks, Blog Patrol, for the information on how people come to visit my blog....). And, so that you can evaluate the similarities and differences between Percy and Harriet yourself, here is Ms. Miers' blog (thanks, Kurt) and a profile of Percy.

While I'm thanking people all around, thanks, Leigh, for your blog reference to one of my posts on Harriet Miers. And yes, I think the squeaker WOULD like to visit you and any neigh neighs who reside near you. But I doubt I'd ever get him to come back home!!

Miers' Pro Bono Work and the Right to Privacy

I was heartened to read in the Washington Post that Harriet Miers has done some pro bono work. In the absence of evidence that she has made her voice heard on any social issues, her pro bono work at least suggests a concern about access to justice. She also spent time volunteering for Legal Aid in Texas, and she advocated for more legal clinics during her brief time as an elected official on the city council. Nothing extraordinary, but at least she hasn't been completely wrapped up in private practice. It's still amazing to me that anyone could live through the last 40 years of social change in this country without having something to say (in public) about the legal underpinnings of the key issues, but perhaps her confirmation hearings will reveal more.

However, her presentation to members of the U.S. Senate appears to be extremely muddled. Sen. Arlen Specter initially said she told him she believed the Constitution does include a right to privacy and that Griswold (a Connecticut case on access to contraception) was rightly decided. But Specter has since retracted that statement, having been told by the White House that he misinterpreted her remarks.

Griswold, incidentally, involved a statute that stated:

"Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."

Notice that this language applies even to married people; before 1965, in the state of Connecticut, it was illegal for couples, including married couples, to use contraception. You don't need a very far-reaching right of privacy to conclude that such a law must be struck down. And yet Miers seems to be unable to say that she thinks the case was correctly decided. She can't even seem to say that while the reasoning was flawed, she agrees with the result.

That suggests that Harriet Miers thinks states ought to be able to outlaw contraception if that's what the legislature wants to do. I understand that there are many people who believe that there is no fundamental right to contraception, and that these issues are state issues, and not constitutional ones. But as a young woman in the 21st century, with both a career and a family, my ability to prevent pregnancy through contraception is an intrinsic part of my freedom, individualism, and self-determination. If those concepts aren't central to the Bill of Rights, I don't know what is. I am well aware that the Bill of Rights does not include any provisions about reproductive freedom. Of course it doesn't -- the drafters were men. I highly doubt that contraception was important to them. Most forms of contraception hadn't even been invented yet, and those that did exist were not widely available.

But times change. To women like me -- and there are tens of millions like me -- contraception is essential. The Constitution could never be amended to add a right to privacy that would include a right to contraception. Conservatives would never allow that. So we must work with what we have. If that means stretching the Constitution to include a right to privacy, so be it. That Harriet Miers has signaled that she might not support that is frightening indeed.

Riding the Neigh Neighs

This weekend's big event was the Renaissance Festival. Last year, the squeaker was tiny, so he was content to be carried around in his bjorn. He even napped in it happily. This year, he was far more interested in the festival itself. Since we got there early, we made a beeline for the pony rides, as the line is usually very long. Usually, I feel sorry for the parents waiting in that line for their kids to spend 60 seconds on a pony. But this year, I knew it was my own fate, so I was trying to make it as painless as possible.

Frankly, I expected the squeaker to quell with fear once he actually saw the neigh neighs up close. But when we got there, there was no line, and he said, "Ride!" quite firmly. So up he went, with his little hands gripping the horn of the saddle, and his face set with determination. He's not the kind of kid who reacts with exuberant joy to most things, even if he's having a great time. But I could see in his face a kind of happy satisfaction. He concentrated on hanging on and feeling the rhythm of the pony's gait. He was disappointed when it was all over, and he spent much of the day asking to ride the neigh neighs again. We did indeed wait in line to ride again later in the afternoon, but this time the pony was a bit friskier, which made him nervous ("Off! Off!"). Still, with my assurances, he became comfortable enough that the end of the second ride prompted a bit of a meltdown.

I'm not sure if he cared about anything else at the festival. He watched people playing musical instruments with interest, and he was puzzled by a man on stilts. He collected a lot of rocks to carry around. He swung in a hammock with his papa and saw some birds and snakes carved out of wood. People admired his little costume. He ate cookies and pretzels and soup. He saw (and woke up) his baby cousin. He tried to talk Pop Pop into taking him back to the neigh neighs , to no avail. But I imagine that the ponies made the strongest impression; he slept restlessly last night, and I could swear I heard him say "Ride! Ride!" in his sleep.

Mama Rules the Den

The baby panda at the National Zoo was supposed to make his public debut next month. But it has been delayed until December. The reason? His mom won't let him out of the den yet.

I love it. :) Mama Panda and Baby Panda may be kept in a cage at the zoo with cameras capturing their every move, but when it comes down to what Baby Panda can and cannot do, Mama calls the shots. And that's as it should be.

Backroom Deals, Courtesy of the Bushies

So how funny would it be to see James Dobson of Focus on the Family in the hot seat before the U.S. Senate? (See USA today article on this.) Why the Bush administration thinks it's OK to give right-wing zealots private assurances about a Supreme Court nominee is a mystery to me. Transparency is certainly not a value of this administration; it's all about the backroom deals and code words. Of course, it really ought to be Karl Rove on the hot seat, since Dobson was just the listener, and Rove was the one sharing secrets. But as long as it all comes out in the end, I don't care who is forced to tell the Senate what was said in that backroom.

It's mind-boggling that Bush can pretend to have nominated Miers for her legal acumen, litigation experience, intelligence, and integrity but then make much of her Christian evangelism when pressed by the right wingnuts about where she stands on their issues -- particularly abortion and gay rights. Is the administration suggesting that her religion signals something about how she will rule from the bench? Wasn't this the same administration that argued that John Roberts' Roman Catholicism has no bearing on his legal positions, and that a good justice applies the law, and not his or her own personal beliefs? Which is it? And does this administration ever stop spinning?

Finding Nemo Again and Again and Again

I think we've watched the sea turtles segment of Finding Nemo about 30 bazillion times. The squeaker loves it. He gets all cozy on the couch and gazes happily at the turtles. We've tried to show him other parts of the movie only to have him say "Turtles?" in his most baffled and disappointed voice when we turn the movie off. He likes the fish, too, but he really loves the turtles. He has two stuffed turtles, Crush (papa turtle) and Squirt (baby turtle). He will be a turtle for Halloween. Turtles everywhere…turtles turtles turtles…

He loves other animals, too. Horses, especially. Dogs of course. Even cats. And he's a big fan of the PandaCam at the National Zoo ("Laptop! Panda! Baby!"). But mostly, it's all about the turtles.

There must be other films out there that have turtles in them. Please save us from another viewing of Finding Nemo by leaving your suggestion of alternative turtle moments in film in the comments. Please. :)

Kissing Cousins

The Squeaker loves his baby cousin. When he knows she's coming over, he stands at the window and flexes his little fingers, as if he can't wait to get his hands on that baby, and whispers "baby baby baby" in an urgent tone.

He likes to squeeze her, point to her eyes ("Eye!"), and stuff her pacifier firmly in her mouth. The baby always looks less than thrilled, and perhaps even a tad anxious.

But he really does love her. Here he is bestowing a smooch upon her while she tries to look away.

SIDS and Suffocation

The American Academy of Pediatrics has released new recommendations on sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), including routine pacifier use during the first year and no co-sleeping. Co-sleeping, it seems, creates the risk of suffocation. And pacifiers help keep babies from sleeping too deeply.

I'm sure it's true that suffocation is a greater risk for a baby sleeping in the "family bed" than for a baby sleeping in an empty crib. But here's what's puzzling about the recommendations: SIDS is NOT suffocation. If SIDS was caused simply by suffocation, it would not be the stealthy and mysterious occurrence that it is. There are some clear risk factors for SIDS: mothers who smoke greatly increase the risk of SIDS for their baby. Mothers who use formula instead of breast milk increase the risk of SIDS (though the recent AAP policy statement downplays any protective effect breastfeeding has). Babies of mothers under age 20 and male babies also seem to be at higher risk.

SIDS prevention is a good and useful thing. SIDS deaths have fallen in recent years, and the "Back to Sleep" campaign certainly has contributed to that decrease. But I don't like the way the recommendations blur together suffocation and SIDS, when the two are distinct causes of death. The AAP's policy discussion of the SIDS risk associated with bed-sharing cites studies that appear to include suffocation deaths and evaluations of types of bedding.

While there may be a risk of suffocation for babies who share their parents' bed, research seems to indicate that this risk is still very small. Perhaps the most significant problem with the recommendations is that they are a one-size-fits-all approach, when in fact people's circumstances vary greatly. For me, co-sleeping has been the only reason I could continue breastfeeding as a working mom. In the middle of the night, the squeaker need only stir a bit to let me know he wants to nurse; we can both do it without really waking. Because I am a non-smoking, non-drug using, breastfeeding mom who rarely drinks and never takes medication, I suspect that the risk of SIDS has always been very low for the squeaker. Thus, the new recommendations from AAP don't seem very useful for someone like me, though they do specifically discuss the smoking risk factor, citing two European studies that show a significant risk even when the mother does not smoke, particularly in the first few weeks of life.

I admit that I am inherently skeptical that something as natural and ancient as co-sleeping is dangerous. Nonetheless, I would want to know if it really is risky, and I think it's unfortunate that AAP has taken a one-size-fits-all approach because for many women (especially working moms), co-sleeping is key to breastfeeding. And the benefits of breastfeeding are well documented, from reduced incidents of ear infections to a higher IQ. Maybe it’s not possible, but I wish the AAP could tease out the risk factors so that mothers who need to work but want to continue breastfeeding could look at the research and see numbers that aren't confounded by the deaths of infants whose mothers used prescription drugs, illegal drugs, smoked, or consumed alcohol.

See No Injustice, Hear No Injustice

One of the things that gets me about Harriet Miers is that in her long career as a lawyer, she has apparently never been moved to raise her voice against any injustice. For many lawyers, an awareness of injustice -- and of the legal profession's powerful role in countering injustice -- is either a motivation for attending law school or a new discovery when studying and musing about the law. I think it's a bit of a revelation for many young law students and lawyers that their law degree and subsequent admission to the bar gives them powerful tools to confront the injustices in our society. Part of becoming a lawyer is recognizing the legal underpinnings of just about everything people care about, from access to birth control to the safety of the food supply to the definition of marriage. An understanding that all of these issues can be cast as legal issues causes them to have a new relevance for many young lawyers, and from this new perspective comes the realization that many social injustices can be effectively addressed through legal arguments, in a court of law or even just in a public forum.

I don't see myself as a lawyer who carries the banner of social injustice, and yet if I were in Harriet Miers shoes, it would be relatively easy for outsiders to discern my "positions" on a wide variety of hot-button issues though I am only half her age. Newspapers have published my Letters to the Editor on subjects such as church/state separation and gay rights. I've published an article on atheism in a law journal. I've been photographed at rallies opposing display of the 10 commandments in public buildings and at the inauguration day protest in January 2001. I've worked for organizations with clear positions on key social issues, including feminist organizations and a high-profile liberal advocacy group. I highlight these forays into public discourse not as self-congratulation, but as examples of how easily one can leave a very public footprint that reveals personal beliefs and values.

Indeed, many lawyers leave a much more distinct and admirable footprint than I have through years of pro bono work. Even new Supreme Court Justice John Roberts felt compelled to contribute his skills and legal acumen to his firm's pro bono effort. Because his work was in the context of his law firm, one cannot draw conclusions about his opinions on the substantive issues that the firm's pro bono cases involved, but that he felt an impulse to get involved in the firm's pro bono work certainly says something about him. (And Miers may very well have done pro bono work within her firm as well, but it is likely to be equally as unrevealing as that of Roberts.)

One need not be a liberal to raise your voice about social injustice; a social conscience demands no particular political perspective. There are conservative legal organizations that will defend a child's free exercise of religion in public schools, try to limit the right to an abortion, and work to facilitate the legal process of adoption. An example is Liberty Counsel, which describes itself as a "nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family."

But Harriet Miers does not seem to have been moved to work with such an organization at any point in her career, or even to add her voice to the public conversation on key social issues, despite her likely awareness of their legal underpinnings. Indeed, even interviews of her friends and associates suggest that she has been utterly silent on such issues, though she may have once commented that she believed life begins at conception. It seems to me that her silence on her social environment -- which included the women's liberation movement, the civil rights movement, anti-war movements, and the sexual revolution -- speaks volumes about her.

Flight of Fancy

The newest squeaker news is the apparent development of the capacity to imagine. We've seen this while watching him play with a little veterinarian set that he got for his first birthday. It has six little "cages" for the animals, and a set of keys to lock the cages. It also has some veterinary "tools," such as a toy stethoscope, syringe, thermometer, boo boo cream, and a water dish. He'll place each of the animals at the edge of the (empty) water dish and make a little lapping sound. If you ask him what's in the dish, he'll say "water." But it's empty -- he's only pretending to have the animals drink. It's pretty cool to see the emergence of imagination.

I'm glad that he likes the veterinarian set, because I confess to having tormented him a bit wth it. He gets very distressed when he finds that the little animals have been locked in the cages. Naturally, that means it's irresistable to lock them up when he isn't looking. When he sees that the animals have been caged, he squeaks and begins looking for the keys. He can't manage the little locks yet, so he needs help. But he seems very relieved once the animals are freed. I hope this doesn't make me an evil mother.

Harriet Miers: Just Between Friends

Now that I've had a day to mull over Bush's choice of Harriet Miers, I've concluded that it really is an extremely bizarre choice. She doesn't seem to be an extraordinary lawyer or legal scholar. She has no judicial experience. She hasn't spent her career working for social justice or in public service. She's spend the bulk of her career defending and counseling corporations, including Microsoft and Disney.

Bush is intimating that she shares his conservative judicial philosophy, but I suspect that even she might not know what philosophy animates her decisions once she finds herself in the unfamiliar position of judge, rather than advocate. After all, she's never done it before. She's never had to apply her "judicial philosophy" in a way that is the determinative influence over the lives of the people standing before her. She may surprise herself once the realities of her philosophy are apparent.

And because she's only worked as a corporate lawyer, it seems unlikely that she's ever considered her positions on issues such as the right to privacy or the death penalty within the context of the outcome that would necessarily follow from a particular judicial philosophy. It's one thing to consider yourself a strict constructionist in the abstract, when supporting such an approach has no effect on anyone. But when you're the one who would casting your Supreme Court vote to potentially strike down the right to privacy, make a determination that the death penalty is acceptable in particular circumstances, or strike down federal statutes or regulations on environmental protection or public health, it might be a little harder to wave that strict constructionist banner, particularly if you've never done it before and hadn't given it much thought.

There are people who've spent lots of time thinking about the best legal approach to particular issues outside of the framework of working as someone's advocate. These people include legal scholars and sitting judges. But there is no evidence that Harriet Miers has ever done some hard thinking on what it means to be the decision-maker.

That Bush has chosen someone close to him who appears so mediocre suggests to me that he is valuing something other than a stellar resume or a great legal mind. I fear that this something is the private assurance from Miers that she will implement an approach likely to scale back the regulatory authority of the federal government and to diminish the Constitution with a kind of literalism that deflates its protections and progressivism. Such assurances are of the kind that only good friends can make to one another. And that is why I believe the president chose the lackluster Harriet Miers.

Another Supreme Court Nominee

News agencies are reporting that President Bush has chosen Harriet Miers, White House Counsel, as his second Supreme Court nominee. She has no judicial experience, which I find intriguing. I would think that for senators that may object to some of her legal positions, her lack of judicial experience may serve as justification for opposing her. At this point, though, there seems to be little information about her available.

The only reports I could find indicate that she's been something of a trailblazer in her career, as the first woman hired by the law firm she worked for in Dallas and the first woman head of the Texas State Bar, and that she's an extremely dedicated lawyer who works long hours. She is unmarried with no children. I've seen some references to her belief in the "limited role" of the judiciary, but there is little else in the news about her legal positions on key issues, or about her judicial philosophy. I'm sure in a few hours, there will be in-depth profiles all over the news.