It could make for some of the shortest opinions yet, allowing for fast, media-ready analysis: "Harriet Miers writing the dissenting opinion today asserts her belief that emminent domain is 'really lame.'"
 

Bet she can spell "eminent"--it's tiresome to see the Ivy League contingent unite to attack one who is not their own--does it occur to you that criticizing a thank-you note is Miss Mannerish snobbery?
 

Oh, please. I'm a big one for thank-you notes. But this one sounds like it was written by a 14-year-old girl.

For what it's worth, I suspect the first poster was typing too fast, and knows how to spell "eminent."

It's a red herring to accuse me or any other Ivy Leaguer of snobbery here. After all, it's the social conservatives, most of whom are not Ivy Leaguers, who are really ripping her to shreds....
 

Exactly, Rich, and I do indeed know how to spell "eminent." Classic, correcting someone's spelling on an f-ing blog and then calling someone a snob for laughing at what is undeniably funny. Look, bud, I'm a loyal conservative, voted for Bush twice, have to defend myself daily in a blue state. Defending Miers makes you and everyone else look dreadfully shallow. It proves all of our detractors right, that we're loyal to a fault, following GOP edicts off a cliff. Wake up, partner, Bush made a mistake on this one. She's just a lightweight, no way around it. And she needs a thesaurus. Feel free to correct my spelling, you ninny.--Mitch
 

If Miers' intellingence becomes a central issue of her confirmation hearings, as appears certain, it will be interesting to see whether her defenders on the right (if they exist) take this up as another front for anti-intellectualism and Ivy-League bashing. That kind of rhetoric does well on the stump, but I doubt the public would buy the implication that you don't have to be really, really smart -- "great," even -- to serve on the Supreme Court.
 

Nice point, I totally agree with the elitist misgivings one can have with, say, a John Kerry for President, but for the high court, it's just a separate animal, and I don't see it as a representative body (which is exactly why it shouldn't legislate or be subject to politically correct nominations or cronyism).
 

I think that it's patronizing to people who didn't go to Ivy League (or wherever) schools to suggest that they don't want a top-notch candidate for the Court.