OH NO! NOT THAT!….Stanley Kurtz, who has generally been defending Harriet Miers over in the despairing sea of gnashing teeth that is the National Review’s Corner this week, reports that he’s found some disturbing news that may change his mind about the Supreme Court nominee: “[She] was a key figure behind the establishment of a lecture series in women?s studies at SMU.”

Well, clearly she should be drawn and quartered. This just won’t do.

Kurtz allows that “maybe conservative women lectured in this series.” But he quickly decides that “it seems more likely that this lecture series was taken over by doctrinaire feminists who shut out conservative views.” What Kurtz seems to find especially upsetting is that “it happened in the late nineties, by which time Miers was well into her conservative phase.”

It boggles the mind. This is the type of questionable behavior that worries some conservatives about a Supreme Court nominee’s fitness for office? I rather enjoy my infrequent Tour Bus rides through Bizarro World–they certainly do see life differently. But I’m glad I live over here.

Update: Apologies for the duplicate posts. That’s what happens when two bloggers on two different coasts read the same piece of nonsense at the same time.

Amy Sullivan

Amy Sullivan is a Chicago-based journalist who has written about religion, politics, and culture as a senior editor for Time, National Journal, and Yahoo. She was an editor at the Washington Monthly from 2004 to 2006.