Hmmm, let me just save on search costs

I wonder if Bush's decision to nominate Harriett Miers to the SCOTUS seat left by SOC can be explained most parsimoniously by a desire to reduce transaction costs...sort of the way Dick Cheney became VPOTUS.   Already, the reaction is sinking in: who is she? and why on earth?  The folks over at TVC are also not rallying around the wagon here, which should tip off moderates and liberals that this might be an easier, though perhaps self-defeating, battle. 

Orin Kerr describes himself as "puzzled" by the nomination, describing her as "the anti-Roberts," adding that Miers has

no particular experience or expertise in any areas of law that the Supreme Court is likely to consider in the next twenty years; she has no history of having thought deeply about the role of judges in a constitutional democracy; and she is a complete unknown among the parts of the DC legal community that will now be considering her candidacy for the Supreme Court.

Todd Zywicki takes a different tack, and he agrees with David Frum (Miers is an "unforced error") on the question of whether Miers will be a reliable conservative.   He also is willing to call Miers' selection plain ol' cronyism.

If Frum, Zywicki and Orin Kerr are all right, Democratic senators are now faced with a conundrum: should they oppose Miers because she's the anti-Roberts on traditional qualifications, or should they bet on Frum's worry, and think that Miers will become a Souter, or just worse, a Kennedy? 

If they're inclined to take the latter move, I would urge caution.  For one thing, it may be that conservatives like Frum are voicing opposition for spin purposes.  But even taking them at face value, the conservatives' fear of unreliability in Miers is not something from which liberals should derive comfort and succor.  Souter and Kennedy were both judges before their nominations and their work product could be assessed even if their ideology was a mite obscured.  All we know about Miers is that she's a lovely person, according to Frum, and a personal lawyer to W.  My guess is that Zywicki's criticism of Bush Cronyism, Part 894, is spot-on.  Even if Miers turns out to be as mushy as SOC, it's not a good reason to support, let alone vigorously endorse, this nomination.  But, as the information pours out over the next few days, I reserve the right to eat crow.  In the meantime, I would think that SOC is going to have a more protracted stay on the court than she prefers, or than would be necessary in an administration run by a President less taken with his sense of Texas-brand loyalism.