Miers
Obviously it's too early to know much about her, and it may be that part of the reason she was chosen is that it may be impossible to know much about her.
That said, my initial reaction is that the pick walks right into the ongoing complaint of cronyism. Of all the potentially great legal minds in America, George Bush chooses his longtime personal lawyer to replace Sandra Day O'Connor? Being his lawyer doesn't disqualify her from being a great legal mind, of course-- we'll never truly know until after she's on the court-- but it ads to the impression that when it comes to vision, George Bush can't see much further than whoever's right in front of him.
Update:Attywood agrees, and notes Miers' central role in the Bush National Guard AWOL scandal: "White House counsel Harriet Miers has never served as a judge before, and while this career "hard-nosed lawyer" (as she is invariably described) from Texas certainly deserves some kudos for a trailblazing career as a female lawyer, she's not a legal scholar, either.... [She] is a skilled lawyer -- mainly on behalf of big business, including Microsoft and Disney -- and the first woman elected Texas State Bar President. But her main qualifications for the highest court in the land appear to be the same as most of Bush's recent appointments: She is unfailingly loyal to George W. Bush."
Don't sweat Republican nominees...
Do you realize Republicans are responsible for all but 6 justices over the last 49 years? Relax. Chip Atkinson
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth
This is an unwilling gift to the Democratic party.
The Republican party, by strength of their own scandals, no longer has the political will for the nuclear option. That means Democrats could have filibustered an extremist nominee with impunity. Knowing that, Bush was stuck.
Here's how I (hopefully) see this playing out: Democrats will call for documents (of course) and talk about having questions answered. Other than that though, they'll sit back and let the far-right do all of the bashing. They won't really sit back though. They'll endorse her because it will prove to the far-right that they're being duped. Going into the 2006 primaries, it's a great wedge between the two wings of the Republicans.
The usual obstination just isn't worth it. It would leave the Democrats looking obstructionist but, on top of that, I think there is a good chance she's another Souter or Kennedy. And, whether we want to admit it or not, the winner of the election does have some say, to put it mildly.
--Chat Clussman