Let me start by reiterating that I don't object to Harriet Miers' nomination for the Supreme Court. I don't think it's a bad thing for a Justice to not have been a judge before, nor do I think it necessary that a Supreme Court Justice have an Ivy League pedigree - SMU is a fine school.
Now, I don't understand who President Bush was trying to impress with the nomination, given the backlash on almost all fronts. Even Mr. Robert Bork is speaking out against her, noting her support of Affirmative Action and admonishing her lack of support for Constitutional Originalism. I've read on more than one conservative site that Mr. Bork is the nominee that "should have" been selected to the Court over Justice Kennedy in the late 80's. If the Ghost of Supreme Court Nominations Past can't endorse Ms. Miers, how can those who pine for a redo of 1987 do any different? And if the hardcore conservatives can't support her nomination, and the liberals won't support her nomination, and the moderates want to know far more and aren't reassured by constant reassurances that she is qualified and her religion is a matter of her qualification and she'll strictly interpret the Constitution despite the Constitution's apparent condemnation of weighing religion in selection for public office (I stand by my assertion that President Bush's tacit acknowledgment that he considered her religion as a part of her qualification as a de facto religious test and thus prohibited by a strict constructionist interpretation of article VI, Section III), then who is left for the President to have intended to appease?