One of the interesting things that's come up with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, so soon after Roberts takes his new job as Chief Justice, is the different tactics.
With Roberts, supporters of the Bush administration were pulling out all the stops in an effort to convince people that he's not a fundy nutbar. With Miers, they're doing the same thing, but in an effort to convince people that she is a fundy nutbar.
We've had various people with dubious personal experience of Ms Miers' opinions slyly nodding, winking, using that signal for instant pause; "trust me on this", all saying that she'll vote to overturn Roe v Wade before she's even warmed her robe up. Prayer in schools, ten commandments monuments in courthouses, forced church attendance, crucifixion for homosexuality, stoning for women who practice pre-marital sex, all are, if the punditry are to be believed, on the horizon and will sweep closer with Miers' confirmation.
So why the change in tactics?
Let's leave aside the question of whether she's qualified to sit on this nation's highest court. It doesn't matter. 41 past Supreme Court Justices have been appointed without a single second's judicial experience, including the late William Rehnquist.
Let's leave aside the question of whether Bush considering her faith as a qualification is a breach of the constitutional prohibition on religious tests for public office.
I'm perplexed as to why something that was thought to scupper Roberts' chances is seen as a boost to Miers'.
And I'm perplexed as to why people are pushing it for all they're worth.
Is her nomination even supposed to succeed?