No, I don't. Not at all.
Because for the last 5 years, Dubya has been batting .1000 on judicial nominations (with Miers's assistance by the way). You are making trouble for yourself in worrying about this now. Furthermore, those who are attacking this *fully qualified* nominee, are looking hypocritical since in the past they have said judicial nominations are the President's choice and they should get a fair hearing and an up or down vote.
Of course Miers should get a fair hearing and an up or down vote, but history has far from settled whether Bush is batting well on Judges.
If Miers gets up there and votes like another Justice O'Connor or Powell, would you say in 2010 that he batted 1000?
The term "fully qualified" nominee is in the eye of the beholder, and we shouldn't let our loyalty to the President blind us to the fact that Miers' experience and background in Constitutional law is thinner than that of most of the previous nominees for the post. Some strangely think that lack of background is a plus, but close court watchers know that many of the Supreme Court most wobbliest principles have come about from court members (like O'Connor) who used the 'real world' viewpoint to make rulings, and who lacked a rigorous view of constitutional interpretation. Miers may be a fine woman and lawyer, but it is doubtful she will be another Scalia.