Look, I thought Roberts was a fabulous choice. Smart, principled, dilligent. Ok so he's a little to the right of Hannibal in his personal views, but you can tell that he has a reverence for the law, and will do his best to stick to a coherent mode of judicial reasoning. Really didn't give much ammo for the left. Aside from Charles Schumer's film career.
Meanwhile, Harriet Miers is....religious, nice (NyTimes, reg. req.), smart and dilligent. (Did I forget ethical?) Plus she's told us how she would rule on a Roe type case. Or has she? On this issue, she just might be all things to all people.
Not enough qualifications you say, (check out her current reading list, ty A3G) how 'bout that she's a pit bull from Texan. Well, how do we know that Dubya didn't just pick the first woman he saw? Well that would have been Laura, and perhaps TOO obvious cronyism.
Look, I get as much schadenfreude as the next lefty from the prospect of the right eating its own young on this one, but the J.D. in me wants, no, NEEDS someone on the court who passes at least minimal standards of qualification. In fact, I'll let yet another erstwhile Bushie, Charles Kruathammer have the final word:
It will be argued that this criticism is elitist (Pooh: Let's not forget sexist either, Laura). But this is not about the Ivy League. The issue is not the venue of Miers's constitutional scholarship, experience and engagement. The issue is their nonexistence. (full article)
Update: Ignore everything I just wrote and read this. Just in time for Halloween too.