When appointing someone to the Supreme Court you want someone with practical legal skills and a working knowledge of Constitutional law and issues Miers does not have that ConLaw knowledge. There's so much in your post, and it's very late. So let me just respond to the above point. YOU may want someone with practical legal skills and a working knowledge of Constitutional law. Many presidents since 1789 have wanted other things in their nominees. Quite a number of Supreme Court justices had no prior judicial experience at all. Many, if not most, were not Constitutional scholars. As for a "working knowledge," what does that mean? Anyone who successfully goes through law school and passes a bar exam would have "working knowledge" not only of the U.S. Constitution, but of their state as well.
Do you know that of the 17 U.S. chief justices (including Roberts), only six had prior judicial experience on any court, let alone a federal appeals court? One of them, Roger Brooke Taney, was Secretary of the Treasury at the time he was appointed to chief justice. He served briefly as U.S. Attorney General before becoming Treasury secretary.
Another, Melville Weston Fuller, served one term in the Illinois House of Representatives before being offered the posts of Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and Solicitor General of the U.S. (a post recently held by Ted Olson). Fuller turned down both appointments. Finally he was nominated to be Chief Justice and was confirmed.
The history of the court is filled with justices who do not meet the standards being thrown around today by conservatives upset with the appointment of Harriet Miers.
A working knowledge of ConLaw would actually have some experience with it. You can go through law school with as little as six or seven hours of ConLaw, that isn't working knowledge that is an overview. Since this is a nomination to the top court in the land who deals with Constitutional Law I want a Justice who, while not an expert, has some working experience with it. In private practice Miers was a corporate lawyer she would have dealt with very few, if any constitutional issues. Her six years at the Texas Lottery Commission is the same. So basically her knowledge and dealing with ConLaw comes with less than a year as White House counsel. I want a Justice who knows ConLaw not someone who has to pull out a horn book or Emanuels to figure out what is going on.
Previous service as a Judge is not a requirement and I never said it was. But lately Justices who were nominated had extensive service in Government or some other relevant post while that just isn't the case with Miers.
Why should we settle for less because people in the past were nominated with worse credentials? Last time I checked, conservatives were for the best qualified person getting the job. There is not a single person who can say that Harriet Meirs is the best qualified person for the job.