I was pretty stunned by the reaction today to Alito's nomination—not that the Democratic Senators oppose Alito, but that they (Kerry and Reid in particular) seem to be retroactively glorifying Miers and giving conservatives the credit for sinking her nomination. In fact, plenty of liberals were opposed to her from the start, because Miers was an unqualified cronyist pick who would never have been nominated if she weren't Bush's personal lawyer. She did not deserve to be on the Supreme Court, and if she had come up for a vote, I would have been severely disappointed in any Democrat that voted for her; it would be no better than supporting Arabian-horse-society head Michael Brown to lead FEMA.
Sorry for the lack of links—this is from comments made by Harry Reid and John Kerry I saw played on TV.
But, really, isn't it possible to be against both judicial extremism and cronyism? Maybe Miers would've been better than Alito, but that doesn't mean that she wasn't a shitty cronyist pick, and it doesn't mean Democrats should give conservative activists the credit for sinking her ridiculous nomination, especially after her insulting treatment of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Edit: Wikipedia apparently dug up the quotes in their article on Alito:
"Conservative activists forced [Harriet] Miers to withdraw from consideration for this same Supreme Court seat because she was not radical enough for them."
-Harry Reid
"Every American should be deeply concerned that the far right wing which prevented Harriet Miers from even receiving a Senate hearing is celebrating Judge Alito’s nomination and urging the Senate to rubber stamp the swing vote on our rights and liberties."
-John Kerry