The conventional wisdom among many Kos posters about the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is that this is somehow a victory for the Democrats.
Not so. At least yet.
Before we get all excited about Miers, I think it is vitally important that we learn more about her views on the constitutional right to privacy (and as a derivative, the right to an abortion), affirmative action, the war powers of the executive branch, and a host of other issues on which she could prove to provide a pivotal swing vote.
Simply because Bush didn't nominate someone like Luttig or Brown, with proven conservative records, does not mean that Miers will be any less of a right wing nut, or the new Souter. Such an argument is entirely illogical.
We know that Miers was interviewed by Bush and that his advisors know MUCH more about her views than the Senate ever will, provided that she pleads the 5th, like Roberts did during questioning. That she was nominated by Bush speaks volumes about her opinion on various topics of extraordinary Constitutional importance. Her lack of judicial or other relevant experience and mediocre (at best) educational background suggest that we should gather a lot more information on this candidate before declaring her nomination a victory, of any sort.