There's more than a little coyness in the president's choice because the woman he chose, like her or not, is not easily stereotyped, unless you count the label "spinster," which the media has conveniently attached to her resume. But calling her an old maid undercuts the idea that she has "real life experience." Columnist Maureen Dowd, a spinster herself, sneers in The New York Times that Harriet Miers merely joins other "vestal virgins" who guard the sacred fire of W's reputation. The president invited these characterizations, of course, when he told his conservative friends not to be afraid of her thin resume because he could "see into her heart."
So far we haven't a clue as to what kind of judge, big heart or not, Harriet Miers would make. She contributed $150 to a right-to-life organization in Texas, but that doesn't tell us anything about what she thinks about Roe v. Wade, or whether she sees that penumbra of privacy in the Constitution on which Roe v. Wade rests. She gave money to an early Al Gore campaign, so her biography, such as it is, offers scant support for the president's assurance that "she's not going to change."
We can all admire her as an accomplished woman. But a cultural conservative is inevitably disappointed by what's missing in that biography -- and absence of evidence of judicial philosophy. Since the nomination like it or not is out there, it's only fair to keep an open mind about it (so long as our minds are not so open that our brains fall out). Her answers to questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee should give us a hint of whatever judicial philosophy she may have. Maybe George W. was blinded by political sex appeal. Maybe not. The ball is in the Senate's court, and the score is 15-love.