Paul Deignan asserts that Laura Bush’s comments in 2001 demonstrate that Miers is personally pro-life but judicially pro-Roe.

A vote for Miers is almost certainly a vote to maintain Roe, and she will not waver on that.

He gets here by the fact that the pro-Roe Laura Bush says that she and her husband “are [in general] on the same page on the issue,” and that Bush says that “Miers shares [his] philosophy” as a “pro-life president.”

However, I urge a note of caution in regard to Mrs. Bush’s comments. She is not a constitutional scholar, and there is definitely a chance that she believes that “overturn Roe” means “make abortion illegal” which it most certainly does not. As I understand it, it basically throws it back to the states to decide, which is where it belongs in the first place, in my non-constitutional-scholar opinion.

As people look for an explanation of why Mrs. Bush thinks Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, perhaps we should consider another statement she made during the same interview. She said, “I would say, in general, George and I are on the same page on the issue.” President Bush thinks abortion is justified in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. That position requires that abortion remain legal. If Mrs. Bush is on the same page, as she has said, perhaps she believes that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal in America.

[The logic of holding a position that permits abortion in the case of rape is a different discussion entirely for another day…]

But with regard to this nomination, I’m still waiting for the hearings before I pass judgment on Ms. Miers. Diegnan’s smoking gun is interesting for sure, but I’m not completely sold on its merits.

Jeff Goldstein has a bit of a different take on it.

I am not concerned with how Miers would vote on a particular issue; I’m interested in the thinking that gets her there. In the case of abortion, I can certainly see where stare decisis might apply—just as I can recognize that the decision itself is a complex battle over ideas of privacy “rights” and ownership of self vs. the rights of the fetus and, more structurally, of the power of the Courts vs the provence of the legislature.

But other political positions are more revealing of a judicial philosophy; and for me, support for race-based affirmative action, however guarded or politically pragmatic, is one of those telling postions.

UPDATE: Paul is asking for bloggers’ official positions on Miers, tabulating a list. My personal position, which may differ from other Myopic Zeal authors, is that I am reserving judgment until I watch the confirmation hearings.

That’s the argument Alexander Argyropoulous made.

[Santa Barbara High School] senior Alexander Argyropoulos said alcohol testing encourages students to use drugs that cannot be detected with the Breathalyzers. Drinking, he said, is “better than possibly trying cocaine.”

Keep in mind, they’re doing this at the optional after school dance, not in math class.

Bill’s mind is boggled.

1. Control over underage drinking is so poor that the school will conduct breathalizer testing.

2. Random testing assumes guilt rather than innocence.

3. Students think that it is better to be assumed drunk and be randomly tested

4. Students will find something else instead of alcohol if they do it.

5. Drinking is better than drugs.

6. And the local anti-drinking group wants something done, translation–more rules, enforcement, and intrusion into rights. Their end justifies any means.

Insignificant Thoughts sees it as more erosion of rights.

Drinking may not be a part of growing up, but let’s take his first point… If the school starts testing for beer, people will start smoking pot. I actually think he’s right, believe it or not. But let’s not kid ourselves here; if they can do a breathalizer without cause, what’s to stop them from taking hair, urine, or other samples testing for other drugs?

Here’s the venerable ACLU’s guide to student rights.

Skippy the Bush Kangaroo has some personal experience at SBHS.

Liz thinks their doing the right thing.

That is EXACTLY what the school SHOULD be doing. At my high school, our SADD president died when driving home from a party. Yes, he was drunk.

Sometimes you just can’t win

News that the threat was based on bogus information will increase the pressure on New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his police commissioner, Ray Kelly, who have already been criticised for overreacting.

Of course, if he had ignored it and it had been real, there would be investigations, congressional inquiries, and public lynching of Mr. Bloomberg. Any person with a brain knows that the threats could be real, and as such, have to be taken seriously. It’s a whole lot better to look stupid and be wrong about a false alarm than to be stupid and have a whole buncha dead people.

He may not have had to be so high profile about it, but I would rather have a mayor who is overly cautious than one who ignores potential threats.

The Grape Vine makes the case that the information was in fact very credible.

It is interesting to note, on the other foot, that Bloomberg criticized others for overreacting in an unrelated incident back in July. (H/T Urban Grind)

And what has followed has been almost equally striking: a public apology by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who defended the police, but criticized the Gray Line employees for overreacting, a message that for some has raised questions about just what a public frightened by terrorism is supposed to do with what they feel are legitimate worries.

Noy G thinks Bloomberg did the right thing.

Despite the vulgar acronym, this site has some really funny stuff if you’re a programmer.

I think we’ve all been here.

This is a riot.

Oneida Common Council candidate Brian Karst said he is still running for office, despite being charged with drinking and driving twice within three hours Friday.

“Just because I’m accused of something doesn’t mean there aren’t things that still need to be addressed,” he said Monday. “I believe in democracy and that people should not run unopposed.”

Karst said he was campaigning Friday before he was pulled over

Not even Kennedy can top that.

You’ve heard the “we support the troops” mantra from the Democrats. But when it comes to hearing the experiences of a recently returned soldier from Iraq he is shunned by the Democrats.

Powerline relates the experience of this soldier, a Major, who finds a starvation among the people here in America for the truth of what is going on in Iraq. And it seems if that truth is good news the Democrats don’t want any part of it.

What has struck me the most is how starved people are to know what is really going on over there. So many are quite grateful to hear a different perspective than the one that bombards them daily. Having watched the biased reporting since the beginning of the conflict, I was not surprised to discover that people want a more balanced perspective, even if the intensity is stronger than I expected. What has been surprising, though, and a bit disappointing, is that there has been a distinct split between the interest level of partisan political groups. I contacted county leadership for both Democrats and Republicans, along with non-partisan church and civic groups, and have received numerous requests from churches, non-partisan groups, and Republican organizations — but zero from Democrats, despite following up with them several times.

I hope it is an anomaly, but I wonder if the fact that Democratic leaders in my county would rather accuse the troops at Gitmo of running a “gulag” than hear about the experiences of a service member who just returned from Iraq might be driving some folks away from their tent of “tolerance,” not just here in Northern California but around the country.

It’s just more evidence of the deceit of the Democrat Party, pretending to support the troops while undermining their efforts. It’s good to know more and more Americans are seeing the anti-American nature of the Democrat Party. And it’s even better to know that things in Iraq are going much better than reported.

Thank you Major. Keep up the good work… here and abroad.

David Limbaugh’s most recent column is up.

It appears that President Bush did not want to risk a confirmation fight, which is very disturbing because if he intends to make an impact in the balance of his term, other than in the War on Terror, he must be willing to fight Democrats on social and economic issues as well.