I recall the attacks against Clarence Thomas. He didn't have sufficient judicial experience and had briefly headed some WH agency. He wasn't the best-qualified for the job, they all said.
He's turned out to be the best judge on the court - not because of his sophistication, but because of his simplicity. He's a radical to the left because he goes to the dictionary for the meaning of words in the Constitution - what a simpleton and a rube. More sophisticated judges go looking for penubras and new meanings and find rights that were there all along and no one ever noticed them.
Someone posted an interview with Miers' pastor. He said she would take an originalist viewpoint - namely, that words have specific meaning. If that holds out to be true (and that's a big honkin' IF), I will gladly support Miers. We don't need more sophistication on the court. We need less.
That gives me some hope. Much needed hope as I'm watching Harry Reid gush over her...
And we fought him through over considerable opposition because we had some idea how he would rule. There were originalists out there with proven track records as originalists on the bench. We have no basis to know how Miers would rule because she has never ruled on anything. We do not even know how she would address the constitutional issues because she has never practiced in that area. All we have to on is Bush's trust in her, which is just not enough to make me feel comfortable given the other canidates that were out there. Again, I hope I am wrong.