I've also been reading around the blogosphere today. The solid arguments against this nomination are much more persuasive than the typical bushbot insults to be found on Free Republic.
A Supreme Court Justice is more than just a vote. He or she is a voice. Meir's shockingly meager qualifications -- and her inability to point to anything in her record that indicates she's ever used her voice on any important jurisprudential question -- are incredibly disheartening.
The more I learn, the more pathetic this nomination becomes. Apparently, for some on FR, learning has no place in assessing the president's actions. Blind allegiance to a very flawed leader is all that matters, come what may.
"I find it hard to discuss Harriet Miers seriously in those terms, but on balance she seems likely to vote the right way for whatever reasons. She’s thus another representative of Bush and Karl Rove’s belief in incrementalism — that the Republican majority can be made a permanent feature of the landscape if you build it one small brick at a time. Miss Miers is, at best, such a brick, at a time when conservatives were hoping Bush would drop a huge granite block on the court. But, given that she started out as a Democrat and has been on the receiving end of the partisan attacks on the administration for five years, she seems less likely than any detached effete legal scholar to be prone to the remorseless drift to the Left that happens to Republican Supreme Court nominees."
Then he gives Frum's views..He does not embrace it..just presents it.