(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I've spoken to the office of both my Senators and informed them that, should Ms. Miers make it through comittee, I would be comfortable with her skills as applied on the bench of the Supreme Court. The fact this nomination angers people from both sides of the aisle is indicative that President Bush, after consulting many others and thinking for himself, made this choice carefully, with all the political and constitutional ramifications in mind. As another poster has written, President Bush is not about poking liberals in the eye. (If it were me, I'd be giving them wedgies.)
Given those two considerations, a reading of these should not be expected to reveal any great constitutional knowledge, nor should it be expected to reveal the style of "inspired" writing Miers may be capable of using when writing an opinion on some cherished constitutional principle.
Over 2000 years ago, a famous leader chose a rough and uneducated (that is, by the ruling elites of the day) fisherman as the "foundation stone" for what was to become a movement that changed the world. That choice probably wouldn't have "measured up" to the criteria of his contemporaries either, but the centuries-long impact stands on its on.
Warning: that last paragraphy must not be interpreted as any attempt to many any implication of comparison of the two leaders--just an observation about the futility of predicting outcomes based on inadequate knowledge.
Lets see....
Acting and stand-up comedy = Judicial integrity
really bad analagy. Somebody just needed to fill column inches.