Miers and Pro-Lifers

I see RIck's point that pro-lifers need to withhold judgment on Myers because her views on Roe as a constitutional decision are not clear.  But what does seem clear is that Bush is at best taking a big gamble on her views of Roe (unless she's given him private assurances) when there were other candidates whose opposition to Roe's constitutional foundation was far more certain -- and who, as Todd Zywicki lucidly explains over at Volokh, would be far more likely "to provide intellectual leadership that will move the legal culture" against Roe (and other erroneous decisions) over the long run.  RIck points out that any nominee who had explicitly criticized Roe would face stiff opposition (would probably get no Democratic votes).  But Bush now has 55 Republican senators -- more than he's ever had -- and in the past he's taken on fights like this on issues that he truly cared about, such as the war in Iraq and upper-income tax cuts.  The negative inference about the weakness of his commitment to overturning Roe may not be conclusive, but it's pretty darn strong.

Tom