Well, the president made his second nomination to replace Sandra Day O’Connor.

President Bush named White House Counsel Harriet Miers, 60, to be associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court today.

Miers, who was Bush's personal attorney in Texas, was the first woman elected president of the Texas Bar Association and was a partner at the Texas law firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp before coming to Washington to work in the Bush administration.

The announcement came just two hours before Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. formally took his seat as chief justice of the United States on the high court's opening day of the 2005 term.

Miers would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, generally considered the decisive swing vote on many close issues before the court.

If confirmed by the Senate, Miers would be a rare appointee with no experience as a judge at any level. Initial searches of news archives also suggested that Miers has not been an outspoken advocate for or against any particular issue.

The response of the Democrats in this instance bothers me a great deal. They are too accepting and too gracious.

Reaction from Democrats was noncommittal but not negative, mostly because of who she isn't (a prominent conservative judge similar to some of those on the White House short list) than who she is.

Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Miers has been a Bush loyalist and that "it is important to know whether she would enter this key post with the judicial independence necessary when the Supreme Court considers issues of interest to this administration."

But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that both Republican and Democratic senators suggested Miers by name to the president.

One Democrat who appeared pleased by the choice was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.).

"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week, in a statement. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

Later when meeting with Miers at the Capitol, Reid noted that 39 other people have been appointed to the Supreme Court without having experience as a judge. He praised her experience as a trial lawyer, an occupation he shares with her.

"So anyone with that background makes me feel good -- someone who has been a courtroom, tried cases, answered interrogatories, done all those things that lawyers need to do," Reid said.

I don’t like it when the opposition is so tepid – we needed a candidate who pissed-off the Left, not one who provoked such a low-key response. That leads me to wonder what they know that we don’t, or what dirt they have on her.

I am, to say the least, disheartened. Not because of the failure of the president to nominate a Hispanic or a sitting judge, though those things trouble me. Rather, I am upset by the lack of credentials on the part of this nominee after the excellent choice of John Roberts for the Court

This is not an individual with the necessary credentials to serve on the Supreme Court. While she may be a superior lawyer, that does not necessarily lead to the belief that she will be a superior judge. She lacks a significant scholarly record. She is a bit older than I would prefer to see. Quite simply, this is a case of “insider-ism� run wild.

National Review puts it well in today’s editorial on the selection.

Harriet Miers could turn out to be a solid conservative justice, with an intellect and commitment to constitutional rectitude to match Antonin Scalia. The president may believe that she is, and is likely to remain, a solid legal conservative. In accepting the nomination, she said, “It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the Founders’ vision of the proper role of the courts in our society.� That is something of a platitude; but it is, at least, the right platitude.

When the American Bar Association came out for legal, and subsidized, abortion, Miers argued that members of the organization should be allowed to vote on it first. Perhaps she would have similarly democratic inclinations — and a similar willingness to buck elites on moral issues — on the Supreme Court.

But none of this adds up to persuasive evidence that Miers would pull the Court, and its constitutional law, back toward its proper source. John Roberts was a “stealth nominee� in that he did not have declared positions on such questions as the constitutionality of affirmative action and anti-abortion laws. But Roberts possessed stellar professional qualifications, had impressed everyone who came in contact with him, had written well-reasoned judicial opinions, and had conservative legal heavyweights willing to vouch for his soundness.

These things are either not present, or are present to a smaller degree, in Miers’s case. Being a Bush loyalist and friend is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. She may have been the best pick from within Bush’s inner circle. It seems impossible to maintain that she was the best pick from any larger field. It seems highly unlikely that she will be the kind of justice who, in combination with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, will attract additional votes by the sheer force of her arguments. This nomination was a missed opportunity.

Harriet Miers is not the sort of nominee that we were promised by the president. She lacks the experience and record that a Supreme Court nominee needs to inspire the confidence of the American people. It is my profound hope that this nomination is withdrawn or defeated so that a more acceptable candidate may be put forward.

OTHER VOICES:
Michelle Malkin (Twice)
Captain's Quarters
Q and O
The Moderate Voice
All Things Beautiful
Southern Appeal (multiple times by different contributers to that outstanding blog)
Blogs for Bush (several times)