I'm still on the fence also.

You ain't alone at that "wait and see" table, and I really don't see how anybody can make a call on her at this point.

Ditto. I've got my fingers crossed, and the charges of cronyism don't wash with me. I can't imagine this president, who's duked it out over countless appellate court appointments, has suddenly decided to sacrifice his legacy just to reward a pal with a job for life. Doesn't make sense.

I will concede that, for some reason, the administration badly misjudged the reaction they'd get with this nomination.

I am also waiting to hear what the judiciary hearings dredge up from Miers. I'm rooting for her to knock our socks off with a sound Constitutionalist philosophy; however.........I'm not bettin' the farm on it.

Good comments, all. I'll wait and see. But I trust the President more than I trust the bloggers who are saying he should dump her... even more than bloggers like Betsy Newmark who says the President should have checked with conservative bloggers and pundits before making his selection.

I've read several pieces that indicate the grass roots conservatives support Harriet Miers at least going through the confirmation process. It is mostly our pundits and inside-the-beltway crowd that are so noisy about Ms Mier's qualifications (or lack thereof).

I for one think it is refreshing to see someone who is not an Ivy Leaguer. Too many Ivy Leaguers have reverted back to their liberal Ivy League indoctrination (er, I mean education)after having been seated on the SCOTUS bench. If a research was done, it would probably reveal more conservatives appointed to the bench that have turned liberal (or returned to liberal) have come from the Ivy League. Gee, that really makes me want another conservative Ivy Leaguer appointed, doesn't it you?

I also place a lot of trust in President Bush's solid record of appointing conservative judges to appellate court positions. Why would he vary or waiver in selecting Ms Miers?

Lastly, I'm not sure our Republican Party senate leadership could succeed in taking on the Democrats in confirming a Rogers Brown, or Owens or Luttig nominee. Frist let fourteen senators ursurp the Republican senate majority by forming an alliance that decided to confirm some appellate nominees and leave blocked other nominees. Bascially fourteen senators have the power in the senate to confirm or block appellate nominees. (I realize SCOTUS nominees must come before the entire senate for confirmation - they cannot be held in committee.) But the point is - the Republican leadership abdicated power to 7 Republican and 7 Democrat senators. That doesn't give the appearance of strength in party unity!

Personally, I would like to have seen a non-lawyer nominated. A conservative with a basic load of common sense could read the constitution and form an opinion. He/she would have a whole staff to do research, so the lawyer/judge aspect isn't really a requisite in my book (it certainly isn't a requisite in the constitution). But then, I'm not the president, am I?

Regardless, it's nice to know that the White House is applying a litmus test to judicial nominees now.

So long as you are "religious," whatever that means, you are qualified to wield the law objectively ... apparently.

This sounds a little familiar, what with litmus tests and all. I was unaware I was living in a country with a government watching and ranking my religious affiliation and/or participation.