What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

So apparantly Dobson was directed to Hecht and Kinkeasde by Rove, and it was they who told Dobson and company that Miers would vote to overturn Roe.

This is nothing that I didn't expect. With the continuing description of her as an eveangelical Christian, what is talked about here is exactly what I was expecting to see. Those are political grounds to oppose her, but there are others that are just as, if not more, significant. First among them is, how would she describe herself on Constitutional thought? Is she an Originalist? Strict Constructionist? Constitution in Exile? Living Document? There are a number of ways to approach Constitutional questions, and each of those approaches means different things.

No one knows. There is a good possibility she doesn't even have an idea herself, and that presents problems I am not sure we need to deal with. There is much to being on the court that is "on the job" training. Figuring out a baseline idea at the same time may be more than is desired.