Reactions from the Conservative Blogosphere:
I just took a quick tour of conservative blogs for reaction to the Miers nomination. A few excerpts:  

  Feddie at Southern Appeal:
  I am done with President Bush: Harriet Miers? Are you freakin' kidding me?!
  Can someone--anyone--make the case for Justice Miers on the merits? Seriously, this is the best the president could do?
  . . . .
  Oh, and if any of you RNC staffers are reading, you can take my name off the mailing list. I am not giving the national Republican Party another dime.
  Right Wing News:
  George Bush's decision to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is bitterly disappointing.
  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.
Michelle Malkin:
  It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.
  This 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.
  I was hoping that, because this is Bush's second term, he would thumb his nose at the diversity-mongers and appoint the best candidate. He thumbed his nose all right, but at conservatives.
  William Kristol:
I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized.
  . . .
    I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.
  We've got a lot to learn about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. To hear the White House tell us, "With her distinguished career and extensive community involvement, Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience and diversity to the Supreme Court."
  Diversity. Sure she does. In fact, she gives money to Republicans *and* Democrats.
  Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do. And please remember - we've been defending you these five years because of this moment.
  Mark Levin at Bench Memos:
  The president and his advisors missed a truly historic opportunity to communicate with the American people about their government, the role of all three branches of the federal system, and the proper function of the judiciary. More importantly, they have failed to help the nation return to the equipoise of our constitutional system. And the current justices whose arrogance knows no bounds will be emboldened by this selection. They will see it as affirmation of their "extra-constitutionalism." The president flinched. Some have compared have compared profligate spending to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. But no one will accuse him of FDR's boldness when it comes to the Supreme Court.
  If people are disappointed, they have every reason to be.
  Professor Bainbridge:
  I'm appalled.
  . . .
  . . . This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.
  Some bloggers are more positive, to be sure, but a surprising number aren't.

Scott Scheule (mail) (www):
Others, such as myself, have made calls for a Republican filibuster.
10.3.2005 1:36pm
If it were just on the basis of conservative reactions, I would call for her immediate confirmation. After all, I find the leanings of such people as the Powerline and Redstate guys to be horrifyingly totalitarian. But she still has baggage, in relation to advice she has given Bush. She certainly should be forced to recuse on such issues as Guantanamo and the indefinate, uncharged detention of American citizens.
10.3.2005 1:40pm
It's really disheartening to realize that so many folks who call themselves Republicans these days have a political philosophy that can be summed up as "Majority rules! Thpppppt." No consideration of what's good for the republic or our fellow American. Politics at the depth of an elementary school playground.

The founders are glad they're dead.
10.3.2005 1:45pm
Goober (mail):

Do you conclude that a nominee could be unqualified for membership on the nation's highest court and simultaneously objectionable to Powerline? I don't particularly like them, either, but I think that if the president appointed a puppy dog to the Court, both Powerline and I would share the sentiment that Judiciary shouldn't submit the nominee for a floor vote.

Prof. Kerr---

Your mention of more positive reviews is the first I've heard that anyone finds this a good nomination. Care to share them?
10.3.2005 1:45pm
When "" isn't sure if you merit confirmation, that's a pretty bad sign.

I find it humorous that some conservatives are already calling for a filibuster, and I wonder what their position was on the nuclear option debate.
10.3.2005 1:59pm
Matthew G.:
I won't be surprised if Karl Rove realizes this was a goof and decides to leak out that Miers had a housekeeper from Neptune so that Bush can have an excuse to withdraw the nomination.
10.3.2005 2:01pm
Gordon (mail):
What a bunch of whiners.
10.3.2005 2:04pm
subpatre (mail):
Just a few days ago Kerr posted about people angry at judges. Many of the comments were about the isolated role of Law Professionals(tm) versus the accessibility to justice for common folks; those whose opinions comprised the survey.

Now we are faced with a Supreme Court nominee who would be the sole voice with management or business experience. She's not the former counsel for the ACLU, and until Bush's election, not a government bureaucrat. Meirs could be the only Justice with real world --as opposed to 'reality based'-- experience.

Beldar writes the Meirs nomination is about real diversity:
"I expect that some of the loudest critics of this nomination will be law professors and "public interest group" lawyers. Well, I'm sorry, but we've already got plenty of representation from those segments of the bar on the Supreme Court's bench."

Yes, it's a divisive (to the Right) pick, but the term 'lame duck' applies equally to both sides of the political spectrum.
10.3.2005 2:08pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
If she's this unpopular on all sides, she's got to be a good choice.
10.3.2005 2:50pm
Seems to me that Harry Reid nominated her.
10.3.2005 3:28pm
Enough with the melodrama, already. I can't believe how the conservative portion of the blogosphere (my peers embarrass me) are whining and posturing over this nomination. Sure, there were more qualified candidates out there, but you could have said that for most of the last ten nominations. And sure, I would have like to have seen Luttig, for example, but don't get in a tizzy because "your" president dared to not nominate "your" pet candidate. There is always the Souter Factor to consider, but looking at her history, Miers seems more likely to be the female Clarence Thomas that the female Anthony Kennedy. Merit, Shmerit. You go with what you know.
10.3.2005 4:26pm
Huggy (mail):
Bush Derangement Syndrome strikes his so called core supporters. He isn't easy to typecast. :-)
10.3.2005 5:00pm
cfw (mail):
I am glad we have someone who, as yet, has no apparent connection to pushing the envelope regarding coercive interrogations vs. torture.

I just hope she does not get intellectually paralyzed (unable to pull the trigger or delegate) once she has her spot. I hear she may have had that problem at the WH.

Perhaps she needs to hire good clerks. If she has to rely a lot on good clerks, does that tend to suggest she will trend toward moderation?
10.3.2005 5:33pm
Adam Steiner (mail):
Just a thought:

Presumably, Miers did not know she was a candidate for nomination when Bush originally hired her. Until recently, Bush may not have thought of it either.

What that means is that Bush may know what her views actually are. Like recess appointments, the judges and professors normally spoken about may push their opinions and articles in certain ways, to stand out and get The Nomination. Perhaps that explains some of the stealth candidates. Miers, on the other hand, probably had frank conversations with Bush, conversations not tainted by a potential nomination.

This may be good for conservatives in the social/economic sense, but bad for conservatives in the originalist sense.
10.3.2005 5:39pm
Cory Olson (mail):
Just a thought...

Could Bush have nominated a moderate, knowing that the Republicans would reject her. Then he can come out and say that he's trying to nominate someone in the middle - another O'Connor if you will. It just sets up for the next judge, whom will look like a more sensible and confirmable person.

...maybe I'm giving him way too much credit though.
10.3.2005 6:14pm
Salaryman (mail):
Republicans probably have painted themselves into a corner from which it will be difficult to exit. The standard for advice and consent, as roughly articulated by the Republicans, has been that the President gets to nominate justices, with the Senate able to reject them only if they are unqualified (in the sense of "not being good enough lawyers" and not in the sense of "having a judicial philosphy that I disagree with").

Given this, it would seem that the only options for conservatives dissatisfied with this nomination are (a) grin and bear it; or (b) make a public case that Miers is unqualified. Neither option is attractive, although I'm betting on "a".
10.3.2005 6:15pm
Gordon (mail):
Cory Olson:

It just sets up for the next judge, whom will look like a more sensible and confirmable person.

If Janice Rogers Brown is your idea of "sensible," then I suppose you have a point. From my viewpoint, Ms. Miers seems eminently more sensible than Judge Brown or Judge Owen, although only a few years on the Supreme Court would confirm whether I am right or not. My definition of "sensible" doesn't include Justices wanting to roll back the New Deal or unhesitatingly overrule Roe v. Wade.
10.3.2005 6:20pm
Unnamed Co-Conspirator:
Quick -- someone tell W that "preserving the balance of the Court" doesn't mean he has to nominate an old white woman for O'Connor's seat. Oops. Too late.
10.3.2005 6:38pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Aultimer writes:
It's really disheartening to realize that so many folks who call themselves Republicans these days have a political philosophy that can be summed up as "Majority rules! Thpppppt." No consideration of what's good for the republic or our fellow American. Politics at the depth of an elementary school playground.
Can you give an example of any Republicans who argue that majority rules is the entire basis for political decisions? There is general agreement among Republicans that the Constitution imposes a number of limits on majority rule--but that doesn't mean that every time the majority passes a law that liberals dislike it is automatically unconstitutional.
10.3.2005 7:04pm
Cory Olson (mail):
Gordon -

Yeah, that's what I mean. I wasn't saying that the nominee would be sensible from a completely neutral point of view. If, however, you frame the public's mind as "Bush picked a moderate, but they can't confirm that person. Now he just wants someone to get through," the public might be willing to just accept that the nominee is confirmable.

That and does the public really want to watch two nominees get denied. One is fun and makes for good news. The second will be a bit harder to swallow.

Now, say you get a moderate denied, then the democrats come out and resist the second one, Buch can be, "look, I tried sending a moderate, but that didn't work, now they don't like this person. We need to move on.....oh, and Freedom's on the march."

Cynical, sure. What's going on, probably not, but nothing surprises me anymore.
10.4.2005 5:57pm