Finding the perfect woman to replace O'Connor.

Manuel Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, writes in the Wall Street Journal about the possible replacements for Sandra Day O'Connor, grouping his list into three categories: the women, the Hispanics, the Senators. (Plus a few that don't fit.) He concentrates on the conservative concern about avoiding "another Souter" and various political ramifications of different choices. So go read his list.

But here's my question, about the blurb he serves up for Maura Corrigan:

Now on the Michigan Supreme Court, she was popularly elected three times, first to the appeals court where she served as chief judge and then to the state high court. She has 13 years' appellate experience and is a widow with two grown children. It would be hard for Democrats to oppose a popular judge from a swing blue state.

Why mention her children when no one else's children are mentioned? Is it a special qualification for a woman if she's had children — making her properly womanly? — but they aren't her current responsibility — which would presumably suit her for a demanding job?

Suit her? Don't say "suit her"! You might jinx her! You know young Bush is devoted to avoiding making his father's mistakes!