Here's part of Andrew Sullivan's take on it today:
In the matter of the Supreme Court, Bush's fundamental motives are sticking a finger in the eye of his intellectual supporters, and keeping a crony so close to him that his executive running of the war on terror will never be subject to real Congressional oversight. (Miers is insurance for the executive-branch-worshipping Roberts). Kitty Kelley notes how this president has sealed off from the public decades of presidential data that are vitally important to making democracy work. But this president is and always has been as much a dauphin as a president. He's responsible for a dynasty as much as a democracy. Miers is the dynasty's constitutional guardian - as well as potentially a minimalist Justice, in line with Roberts. No other candidate could fulfill both roles. Bush, in other words, is treating the Court as a means for personal protection and dynastic noblesse oblige. The question is simply whether the GOP wants to become the vehicle for a crony-ridden aristocracy or something more transparent and meritocratic.
If Sullivan is correct, Bush is trying to tell the grassroots with this nomination that he doesn't need them anymore, and that they can go do it flying. Not a message to give Congressional Republicans the warm fuzzies.
So, now, you're dragging Andrew Sullivan and Kitty Kelly out as proof that the Miers nomination is bad?
Kitty Kelly was laughed off the TODAY show when discussing her book about Bush, and Andrew Sullivan declared,not long ago, that he hated Bush's guts.
Desparation, thy name is Map.