Well, Dems are suspicious. Republicans are as well- only slightly more hysterical.

Miers has no judicial record- not something un-heard of on the SCOTUS, but troubling. She has a record of donating to Democrats in the late 80′s when, it appears, she flipped and turned Republican and began donating likewise. Not to mention Harry Reid was apparently lobbying for her from the get-go. And she has no wife- er- husband- who served on any pro-life action committees.

Why does this concern conservatives so much? Shouldn’t we all be just regurgitating the party line and support her because our beloved Prez nominated her? Dems would like to think so. But like Coulter has repeatedly warned- Bush hardly has a track record of supporting his base. (By the way- I predict a huge “I told you so” coming from Ann’s corner any minute now.) And as I’ve been saying, Bush has some serious trust issues that need to be ironed out with his base.

Reactions around the blogosphere (will update if I see anything interesting):

Liberal

Talk Left

I see another Michael Brown in the making here. “Advise and consent”? Can you say “filibuster”? Let’s turn in the Supreme Court into a lottery. It already is.

Wonkette probably has the most amusing “dirt” on Miers- including Miers’ dating habits, her affiliation with a Christ based ex-con organization, and her tendancy to nit-pick. (Thank you m’dear- I feel so much better now.)

It’s a little like nominating Karl Rove only now Laura will finally put out.

MyDD

But this pick — no matter what Miers’ ideology — seems to be the most egregious example of Bush cronyism we’ve seen so far.

Conservative

David Frum
It’s interesting to note that many on the left are quoting Frum’s comments about her devotion to Bush and waving them around like a big red flag. His comments are what I believe to be the most telling about the Miers nomination- coming from the right or left. And he has a lot to say:

I worked with Harriet Miers. She’s a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated … I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or – and more importantly – that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left.

I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have no good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.

by all means, go and read the rest. We’ll still be here when you’re done.

PowerLine
She’s a disappointment. A bitter one it appears.

his nominee is a two-fer — she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony. So instead of a 50-year old conservative experienced jurist we get a 60-year old with no judicial experience who may or may not be conservative.

The Wizbang boys note that “Bush is asking us to trust him on this, big-time. I and many others wish we had much more than that to go on.”

Hawkins over at Right Wing News seems a tad rattled.

Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush’s pal. She used to be Bush’s staff secretary for God’s sake and now she’s going to the Supreme Court while people like Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown & Emilio Garza are being left on the sidelines.

To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection.

Does that mean you don’t like her John?

Ace of Spades is much more optimistic, hoping for some sort of “Rovian” plot. (Atta boy. BTW- how much ya wanna bet that “Rovian” will be an adjective used for years from now?)

Bush just got a stellar intellect with enough firepower to wage many judicial wars confirmed as the new C.J. So what if this is the calculus – Miers is steady, conservative and intensely loyal to W, and will be the steadfast supporter of Roberts? Plausible. Only time will tell.

update

I’ve been out. Between errands I listened to Rush and Hannity. They didn’t really surprise me with what they had to say.

Rush wasn’t too pleased; He started out his program by noting that the president has taken some hits on both sides lately, and that nominating Miers like he did makes it look like he’s trying to appease people who can’t be appeased. It makes him appear to be acting out on weakness. He also said “you want to trust this president, but look at all this spending. Where has conservatism gone? [It] just raises a red flag.” He also noted that the bottom line is, he just doesn’t know the woman. (sounds familiar. Ahem.) She could be wonderful, but we just don’t know. Callers who called in upset were so because they were hoping for an all out fight in the Senate over a nominee that we all knew was truly conservative. Not someone who could possibly be conservative- but no one really knows for sure. Except the nominee, of course. A few callers did call in to say that they trusted the prez- they reminded him that SCOTUS has always been on the president’s mind, and that they believed he would keep his promise to nominate justices in mold of Thomas and Scalia. hmmm….

Hannity, as I thought he would, sounded a bit more optimistic at first. (I didn’t get to hear his whole show- it’s still on if you want to hear it.) He raised me eyebrows when he acknowledged that Miers donated to Al Gore in 88. He said “most people forget this, but back in ’88 Al Gore was pro-life”.

Good point.