Miers

So it's Harriet Miers for Justice O'Connor's seat.  Here's the basic story in the Times.  The early returns on the blogosphere are not great -- she doesn't thrill the right and doesn't impress the left, nor the center.  Larry Solum, who has been far from left-leaning on appointments issues, cuttingly and without comment excerpts Federalist No. 76.  But it's early yet, there's not much knowledge or consensus about Miers at this point, and the narratives have yet to emerge.

My own thoughts?  They are decidedly preliminary.  She strikes me as accomplished but undistinguished; presumptively competent but nothing more.  That she is something of a Bush crony does not strike me as in any way disqualifying; Frankfurter and Jackson each served FDR before taking their seats on the Court (although Jackson had more public experience with constitutional law issues), and both were distinguished jurists.  The question is how distinguished she was when Bush brought her to the White House, and how clearly she has distinguished herself, and gained relevant experience, while in that position.  In short, she does not strike me as utterly out of the ballpark; neither does she strike me as having been in any way clearly in the on-deck circle.  Certainly there were more distinguished candidates available.  Perhaps, if we are not going to actively strive to pick the "most qualified person," we can abandon the rhetoric that accompanies most nominations that pretends otherwise.

Strategically, if I were advising the Democrats, I would muzzle any interest group that focuses on abortion and other hot-button constitutional issues.  I would instead focus hard on the crony angle (ie., yet another Michael Brown) and on her undistinguished status: is this the best we can do?  Substantively, the only issue worth hitting with her would be the idea that she will ignore her responsibilities as a member of the Third Branch and simply cave to the Executive Branch.  Conversely, were I advising the GOP, I would remind everyone that a fair number of folks who never served on the bench rendered yeoman service on the Court (ie., Powell, although he may not be the right's favorite pick; the administration will be fighting a two-front war here).  I would focus on some of her "firsts" as a woman lawyer.  And to those who complain about her inexperience as a judge, I would point out that a substantial number of commentators just got through urging the President to appoint someone with experience in the legislative or executive branches.

These are, as I say, preliminary thoughts: she is not an outrage but she is also not an especially worthy nominee.  She will not be an utterly easy confirmation, although for reasons entirely different from those that would have applied had the President nominated a brilliant but clearly conservative jurist.  I'll weigh in again (and again, and again...) as I receive and absorb more information.