If the Antis were convinced that she would overturn RvW there would be very little opposition from those calling themselves conservative. No reasonable arguments against Harriet have been made that I have seen. It is pique and resentment that a favorite wasn't chosen.
Many would rather see a flaming conservative go down in defeat that to have one just as conservative confirmed without a big fight.
I want someone there who can explain why, Constitutionally, Roe v Wade should be overturned, not someone who will just do it because it is a conservative thing to do. It is a poorly crafted, judicially active sledgehammer of a social solution imposed on the public by a court. That is why it should not stand. I don't like it when Leftist judges impose abortion and environmental activism, and I would equally oppose Rightist judges imposing lax police power guidelines or corporate monopolism.
If I had any evidence that Miers could produce a sound Constitutional argument on ANY of the many points she is likely to encounter in the next 20 years, I'd be more inclined to trust the pick. But it appears that Bush is more concerned with short term political goals ( picking a woman, avoiding a fight, rewarding a friend) than in considering what may be happening in 2025.
What is so totally amazing is that a person can have her history of personal accomplishments in the legal profession, and yet leave no paper trail of any of her personal thinking on the law. Her judicial philosophy is, AFAIK, totally undocumented. How can anyone become president of a State Bar Assoc., without ever writing down anything about her opinions on any point of law?