>>>"Bush is acting like a King not a President and this "royal" pick is offensive... The SC is not where "loyalty" to a friend is rewarded. It's a place where "loyalty" to the constitution is rewarded."
I agree 100 percent. This is looking like a bad case of hubris on Bush's part. His cavalier attitude on limiting legislation by judges may have already caused damage enough to split the party. This is a core issue.
Hoppy
You have no evidence at all that Miers is not 100% loyal to the constitution. You have no evidence that she will not decide cases in exactly the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
You have no evidence that Bush has abandoned his pledge to put constructionists on the bench. You have no evidence that Miers would rule from the bench.
You have a LACK of evidence good enough to convince you she WOULD be a good justice.
Don't confuse lack of evidence with evidence of lack. Those who know this nominee (there are many respected people who do) virtually all say she is a good nominee.
People like Frum want you to believe that there were two or three people involved in this, all of whom have a secret plan to screw the conservative movement, and somehow they have taken over the white house and forced Bush to pick a horrible nominee.
There is no evidence of that. The only thing so far that is "horrible" about the nominee is the loud wailing of the conservative pundantry stirring up a minority of the conservative base against her.