(Terrence W. Boyle (Fourth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
Janice R. Brown (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
Richard A. Griffin (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 6/26/2002
Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 5/10/2004
Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
David W. McKeague (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
William G. Myers (Ninth Circuit): Originally nominated 5/15/2003
Susan B. Neilson (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
Priscilla R. Owen (Fifth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
William H. Pryor (Eleventh Circuit): Originally nominated 4/9/2003
Henry W. Saad (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001)
Since then, the President has placed one additional name into nomination, on September 29, 2005 (James Hardy Payne to the 10th Circuit in Oklahoma.
As to point 2, there is more secondhand evidence that she's a mediocre lawyer than there is secondhand evidence that she's a good one. Conservative lawyers involved in briefing her for the position as Counsel to the President quickly became disillusioned as to her competence and recommended finding a strong deputy counsel. Chief of Staff Andy Card was of the same opinion and again, secondhand evidence suggests he is the primary force involved in getting her promoted, since he can't fire her because she's protected by the President and First Lady. By promoting her, he gets to try and hire someone competent to replace her. (Admittedly, this is secondhand evidence and could be completely wrong....but it's also only second and third hand evidence that we've been given in support of her...and a significant proportion of that comes from someone who turns out to be her lover.)
As to point 3, I can very easily imagine just what you propose. That is why actually having a judicial philosophy is so important since it grounds the way in which you interpret the Constitution. The way you've portrayed Harriet Miers (and the way she's been portrayed in all of the 2nd and 3rd person accounts we've all read) she supposedly adores the President. It also means she's malleable. She is influenced by the people with whom she associates. We don't need another follower on the Court. The President will be gone from Washington in 3 years. After that, his influence on her will be minimal. Who fills that void? Given the culture in Washington, it's nearly a given she will drift quickly to the left. It's almost exactly what happened with Sandra Day O'Connor. She was reasonably conservative....until Reagan left office.....then she began her drift to lala land, picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution she likes and those that she doesn't (which again, is what happens when your interpretation of the Constitution isn't grounded in a firm philosophy).
I saw a C-span retrospective speech that Miers gave last Spring in which she was defending Owens and Brown and deploring the terrible things that had been said about them, saying they were wonderful women and very accomplished.
Thanks for your information regarding point 1.
As for the rest, man you need to go get a beer. Then, when you have consumed half of it you can get all depressed because your beer is half empty.
Excellent points. And I would add, re: points 2 and 3. . .would you apply the same standard to a Democratic appointee in the future?
That is, would you be up in arms if someone was appointed just because they were a reliable vote that the President knew well personally?