more on Miers

the AnalPhilosopher (a JD himself), has this to say of the initial conservative reaction to the Miers nomination:

The reaction among conservatives is almost universally negative. I don't understand why. Some say they don't trust President Bush. Why not? He knows Miers well. He knows what kind of justice she will be. I also think there's some snobbishness involved. Miers is not an Ivy Leaguer, like John Roberts. She's didn't clerk for a Supreme Court justice. She hasn't been a law professor. So what. She brings something just as important to the Court, namely, real-world legal experience. She's a practitioner, not a professor or a theorist. Law professors, especially those who have never practiced, tend to take an external view of the law, which inclines them to manipulate it. Practicing attorneys take an internal view of the law, which inclines them to respect it. As for this nomination being a case of cronyism, who cares? President Bush knows and trusts Harriet Miers. Should he have nominated someone he doesn't know or trust?

with all due respect to the very smart AnalPhilosopher, i think he missed this nugget of discussion which might just explain why conservatives are expressing some angst about the nomination:

Sources have said (senator and vocal Bush administration opponent) Reid recommended to the White House that Miers be considered for the O'Connor seat.

here's an interesting tidbit on Miers' possible position (or at least her fairness) concerning the issue of abortion "rights":

In 1993, when the American Bar Association opted to take a stance in favor of abortion rights, Miers fought to have the members of the ABA take a full vote on the issue. "If we were going to take a position on this divisive issue, the members should have been able to vote." Miers said in 1992 that she felt Supreme Court nominees should not be asked how they would rule on abortion.