OK, does it strike anyone else as strange that if confirmed Harriet Miers would join David Souter on the never-married wing of the Supreme Court? Married to the church, OK, I get that. But married to the law?
(Better nickname, too.)
Mrs. Souter
Comments to "Mrs. Souter":
Eric the .5b | October 3, 2005, 4:58pm | #
As long as the other justices don't keep butting in and trying to fix them up.I hate that sort of thing...
joe | October 3, 2005, 4:58pm | #
I saw a hilarious comment on a right wing site, along the lines of:"She's never been married or had kids. She's obviously been having sex outside of marriage, and counting on legal abortion like they all do."
Har har har.
Bob Basil | October 3, 2005, 5:00pm | #
She rose to the very top of the Texas legal establishment -- and, as a woman, I'm pretty she thought she had to work longer hours than her male colleagues did.At any rate, I have male friends with similar single-minded professional goals and they are not married, either.
So with those two on the court will that ease the way for gay marriage?
Or...this could be the beginning of a trend towards having the SCOTUS become a monastic order.
Douglas Fletcher | October 3, 2005, 5:11pm | #
I'm just hoping that she won't let her raging hormones get in the way of her legal thinking. You know how 60 year old women can be about that sort of thing.Douglas Fletcher | October 3, 2005, 5:13pm | #
Married to the church, OK, I get that.You do? Could you explain it to the rest of us?
Stevo Darkly | October 3, 2005, 5:17pm | #
Hey, I'm single and work long hours. I just do a lot of re-channeling, and when I really need relief, I just post a perverted sexual comment to Hit & Run.Stevo Darkly | October 3, 2005, 5:19pm | #
... although admittedly, I'm not the hottie that Ms. Miers is, anyway.The Holy Order of the Blessed Scotus, commonly known as the "Scotusians," was founded by St. George of the Shrubs in the year of our Lord 2005. Their habits are black silk, without cowl. Unlike most orders, they take no vows of obedience; indeed, they have often been criticised for their wide divergence from the views of mainstream faithful, and their total disconnect from reality. Nor do they take vows of poverty: members tend to be well-off financially, and they work in a converted Grecian-style palace. Contrary to popular belief, the Holy Father has never excommunicated the order; however, he has pronounced anathema on them several times (as have millions of other people).
Eric the .5b | October 3, 2005, 5:24pm | #
"She's never been married or had kids. She's obviously been having sex outside of marriage, and counting on legal abortion..."Cut a few words at the end, and you get the start of a left-wing diatribe on how she's a hypocrite if she doesn't affirm RvW.
Eric the .5b | October 3, 2005, 5:28pm | #
And just to stay on-topic:OK, does it strike anyone else as strange that if confirmed Harriet Miers would join David Souter on the never-married wing of the Supreme Court?
No.
I have to say no as well. The fact is, to accomplish what this woman has--and she has apparently done a great deal--means pretty much giving up a normal personal life anyway.
dead_elvis | October 3, 2005, 5:47pm | #
What I find interesting is that some people, particularly I think social conservatives, tend to paint childless candidates as unfit for office in local/state races. I know it's not a rule, and there are plenty of exceptions, but I've noticed more than a few local or state races where it's implied that someone doesn't know what's best for "working families" or for "the children" because he/she doesn't have any. Which is of course absurd.JAT | October 3, 2005, 6:10pm | #
Doug:I get the spiritual component to the married to the church gig. Might work for some particularly faithful folks. Devote your life to saving souls -- well, if that what you think you're doing -- great, good for you.
Devote your life to ridding the Texas Lottery of thieving boobs and keeping auto dealers rolling in cash? Uh, yeah. Big job, big plans.
Tom Crick | October 3, 2005, 6:15pm | #
"I know it's not a rule, and there are plenty of exceptions, but I've noticed more than a few local or state races where it's implied that someone doesn't know what's best for "working families" or for "the children" because he/she doesn't have any.I think this is religious in origin.
"He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?"
----1 Timothy 3:4-5
Jennifer | October 3, 2005, 6:27pm | #
Why should it be weird for someone to be unmarried? I'll make fun of her godawful eye makeup, but I don't buy the idea that she has to be married to be worth anything.And who knows? There is at least a hypothetical chance that this will make her less likely to shove husband-n-children family values down everybody's throats.
I agree completely Jennifer. I think this is a slight indication that all that posturing by Bush about gay marriage in '04 was Rove's strings in action, and not the doctrine Bush personally believes. I really don't think Bush is the idiotic modern Republican everyone paints him as. He's just power hungry and knows his base.
The Owner's Manual | October 3, 2005, 7:05pm | #
To knock her marital status seems a watered-down lifestyle bigotry. Are we equating single with quasi-queer? Married-to-the-church rides to the rescue, saving her from the fact that no atheist could ever be a justice, but exposing another bigotry in the process.Praising with faint damns seems to be the nicest way of whitewashing this fence.
There's an old saying that "the law is a jealous mistress". Not that there's anything wrong with that...
kevrob | October 3, 2005, 7:32pm | #
I'm no fan of the trend to treat court appointments like a Tammany hack balancing the ticket, finding spots for an Irishman, an Italian, a Jew, etc. We got Clarence Thomas as a "replacement" for Thurgood Marshall, and now Meirs may sit in what some call the "O'Connor" seat. Some decisions under the Voting Rights Act have depended on the idea that elected judges represent a particular status-constituency, which is just wrong. If I bought this pernicious idea, I'd likely be in favor of having some singles and/or never marrieds in the seats of power. I've never married, so who are these Al & Peggy Bundys to attempt to speak for me, right?In a better world, we'd let the judges deal with the law, and not be burdened with standing in for folks who happen to be shaped or tinted similarly to themselves. I'd also much rather hire a Senator or Governor who agrees with me than one who shares my socio-economic or racial/ethnic background.
Kevin
Rick Barton | October 3, 2005, 7:45pm | #
Yeah, it should never matter what their ethnicity or religion is, or who they are or aren't loving, as long as they love our Constitution.joe | October 3, 2005, 8:33pm | #
Bob Basil,"She rose to the very top of the Texas legal establishment" No, not really. Are you equating "President of the State Bar Association" with "Top of the Legal Establishment?" Because it's not. My dad was president of his local bar association - it's a position for someone who's respected and willing to join a committee. It speaks well of Ms. Mier's sense of public service that she held this post, but it doesn't make her Superlawyer.
Pro Libertate | October 3, 2005, 9:12pm | #
I think there's a sit-com in this--two love-crazed justices and lots of wacky fun.She is a woman who put her legal carear first. You don't become a female partner at a big law firm in Texas in the 80's by taking maternity leave or taking care of your kids, you achieve that by dedication to your job and collegues.
thoreau | October 3, 2005, 9:51pm | #
So, I've been thinking about diversity and the Supreme Court. My Supreme Court dream team would have 9 people who, between them, could check off most or all of the items on this list:-Somebody who's been on the federal bench for 15+ years before SCOTUS.
-Somebody who started his judicial career in the county courthouse.
-Somebody who wasn't a judge before sitting on the SCOTUS.
-Somebody who's done significant work on high tech issues (lead counsel to a tech company, private practice, or legal scholar specializing in the area)
-Somebody who was a tenured professor.
-Somebody who's published a book that would be found somewhere other than the law library.
-Somebody who's practiced military law.
-Somebody who served in the military before attending law school.
-Somebody who served in a state legislature.
-Somebody who held a high state office (Supreme Court, Attorney General)
-Somebody with decades of service in DC
-Somebody who spent most of his career in the private sector before becoming a judge.
-Somebody who's been defense counsel in a capital case.
-Somebody who's prosecuted a capital case.
-Somebody who was a leader in a major non-profit or special interest group (ACLU, IJ, NAACP, NRA, etc.)
-Somebody who worked in a corporation's legal department at some point.
-Somebody who started his own law firm.
And all of them should have distinguished themselves in these roles.
If it should turn out that the current SCOTUS can check most of those boxes then that's a Good Thing. I know Miers can check a few of those boxes, but I simply don't know enough to say whether she's distinguished herself in those roles or simply been adequate. I'm keeping an open mind for now.
Pro Libertate | October 3, 2005, 10:46pm | #
Dirty Harriet is a name that souters her very well.Kang the Conquerer | October 8, 2005, 11:35pm | #
There's an old saying that "the law is a jealous mistress". Not that there's anything wrong with that...Yeah, it should never matter what their ethnicity or religion is, or who they are or aren't loving, as long as they love our Constitution.
Yeah, there's also an Old Klingon proverb which says, "The Constitution is a mistress best served cold."
Think about it. Or don't.