[Betaille]

"I realize that many are concerned about Miers, but I think we need to trust Bush."

So after a week of wrangling we have come full circle. "Trust Bush" is still the only justification that the pro-Miers side has.

[wagglebee]

I will admit that I am "concerned" with this choice. But in the end, even though Bush has let conservatives down in other areas, his judicial nominees have been strong conservatives.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"So after a week of wrangling we have come full circle. "Trust Bush" is still the only justification that the pro-Miers side has."
...............................
sad isn't that we have this lotto queen highly mediocre candidate for scotus while JRBrown and the many other highly qualified and known jurists are ignored..Bush has made a major error and now no matter what he does - remove her or try lamely to just say" Trust me" it so much brings back his fathers "READ MY LIPS"
the next three years may be the worst for true conservatives for BUSH does not need our support in another election. Screwed by this elite ivy league family again.

[Chena]

So after a week of wrangling we have come full circle. "Trust Bush" is still the only justification that the pro-Miers side has.

I disagree. We now know more about Harriet Miers than we did in the beginning, and what we've learned about her has been positive and has justified her nomination. Those who insist that the nominee should have been required to have judicial experience, or at the very least, a lengthy paper-trail, refuse to acknowledge the fact that some of the greatest judges began their honorable service without them.

[Apogee]

Well, in the final analysis, it is what we are being asked to do. Without trying to sound like a votary (I certainly disagree with a number of his policies, though they too prove the point), I am at this point fairly confident that he is trustworthy.
His demeanor during the election fiasco impressed me. His handling of the Chinese aircraft collision made me think he was a man who would stick to his guns, which raised my respect for him up a notch.
He has carried through on the promise to go into Iraq if we were not allowed in (though I admit confusion as to why he and the party have not stuck to this simple reason for doing so), and thus far appointed the sort of justices he has promised us. As Miers was one of the people responsible for the pick of the new Chief Justice, I have no reason to think that she is a stealth liberal just yet.

I find the constant chant of the media (including the WSJ) on this issue to be rather interesting, as they are constantly talking about the need of the Republicans to try to keep the massive middle happy, so as not to lose their votes. There is no undecided middle - independents are always really decided, just not willing to say so. The people that the conservative party needs to keep happy are the ones who are more conservative, so as not to lose any of the truly faithful. (Constitution party, anyone?)

So I agree in principle with what I assume to be your complaint, that she may not be conservative enough. I certainly hope my congress critters all understand that my voting them in a decade ago will not keep me from voting them out when they have turned out no different from the people they replaced, out of some desire to appease the middle or make their enemies happy.
But in the mean time, I find no reason to decide that Miers is a bad pick, when I know nothing about her, other than that she is the pick of someone who has done what he has said so far.