My take

Mark Shea got gently taken to task by Tom Hoopes of the National Catholic Register.

I read the NCR article and I give NCR their due. I read it without thinking they were Bush puppets. But then again, I don't take most of Bush's respectable supporters as puppets. Some may not have considered carefully, others I just disagree with.

But here are my issues with the article. The step of logic between "which is she- unknown or overly known" doesn't make sense. To US (everyone other than the president) she is an unknown. The fact of that Bush knows her doesn't change the fact that she has no "paper trail" to verify her qualifications. Couple that with the "trust us" being the only qualification forwarded by Bush doesn't maker her a known commodity.

On cronyism? What about the fact that the Senate gives "advice" and "consent" to the nominations essentially to prevent cronyism, nepotism and other of that ilk. (see the Federalist Papers #76 )

On overturning Roe v. wade. I don't (I think I speak for many on this) wabt to know if she is going to overturn Roe v. Wade. I would care to know if she thinks that ruling was according to the constitution. She is not an electable politician. Her opinion doesn't matter. Her ability to rule without being influenced by her opinion does.

To paraphrase another commentor on Shea's blog, a confirmed originalist would likely rule against Roe v. Wade, but that isn't all. He/she would rule correctly on so many other important issues facing our nation today.