"Well-known Constitutional expert Kennedy doesn't seem to have turned out the way his resume and record indicated."
Kennedy also did not have a strict constructionist or originalist record, as a Luttig does. Reagan was warned against O'Connor as she had no such track record either. It's not just that you pick someone exceedingly bright for the highest court or with a good resume. You pick someone who is exceedingly bright WITH a strict constructionist or originalist track record. Neither Kennedy nor O'Connor fit that bill. Luttig does. Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown do. Miers doesn't. Not at all. In fact barely a record at all. So then it once again comes down to trusting Bush's "gut" instinct. Hope it's better than Bush Sr's was, or Reagan w/O'Connor, etc. Which do you think is preferable, a known track record of strict interpretation of the constitution based on our forefathers' thinking, or an unknown one picked on "instinct"? I'll go for the known thank you. Hopefully we will luck out here, but I sure would have preferred the more known over the unknown. Nothing in life is cast in concrete; however, if a person has a reasonably long history of faithfully interpreting the letter of the constitution and expressing this over and over as their judicial philosophy, that's a pretty good clue. With Harriet Miers we are clueless.
That's 10 votes that the President can't count on, and are probably no votes.
Now, Harriet Miers isn't a constitutional scholar. She has worked in corporate and business law, which is pretty complicated. She has done so successfully.
She is also humble enough to know she isn't a scholar like Scalia or Roberts. My guess is that she would follow their lead while learning as much as she can as quickly as possible.
She also, by virtue of not having a paper trail, can get confirmed with the votes of the RINO's. (Let me remind you that we need their votes for confirmation, because on this vote the democrats will be in lock-step.)
This was Bush's dilemma: to get someone he is sure is an originalist who will not legislate from the bench, even though her credentials are slim, or nominate a paper trail conservative who would lose because of RINO defection.
I am willing to take Miers. If she proves to be incompetent or shows liberal tendencies in her testimony, I will withdraw my support.
This nomination cannot be judged unless the political situation in the Senate is taken into account. I am not merely speculating. Susan Collins wrote the President and asked that he not nominate a "controversial nominee" and was joined in that letter by several senators. Specter told Bush not to "blow up the Senate" and said he would oppose any nominee that had been confirmed by the compromise of the Gang of 14 (Owens, Brown, etc.). Warner was concerned about destroying the comity of the Senate.
So, what would you do? The President isn't going to send a nominee to go through that meat-grinder of the hearings if he knows that the nominee is DOA; an attractive characteristic of the President is that he doesn't treat people like cannon fodder.
Again, what would you do? I think he is threading the needle and doing the best he can to honor his promise.