UPDATE: Additional considerations have made me far less pessimistic about this nomination.
Stanley Kurtz (via Volokh) points out that Miers, the woman nominated for the Supreme Court, was involved in creating a lecture series in a woman's studies department. Furthermore, she did it in the 90's, after she had left the Democratic Party. This raises the question of whether she is sympathetic to the radical feminist agenda.
What could be a minor oddity becomes a serious problem because we have no objective way to know how Miers will behave on the Court, so any sign that she has sympathies for the left is a sign that she has sympathies for leftist reinvention of the Constitution.
Again, we really have nothing to fall back on except for the word of people who know her. People like George Bush and Harry Reid who are both enthusiastic about her. But this is a conflict, no? Bush has nominated some very good people for the courts. Reid has opposed some very good people. Their stated views in what they want in a justice are polar opposites. Yet they agree on Miers. What are we to make of this? Is Miers really more of a Bush nominee or a Reid nominee? Or is she somewhere in between?
Consider this: Bush has, ever since he became governor of Texas, constantly tried to befriend Democrats and RINOs. He has always been looking for a compromise where everyone comes out good. He kept several Clinton Democrats on his staff and three of them have caused him serious trouble. Bush has been pals with Clinton and he tried to be pals with Kennedy. He let Kennedy distort and then take credit for his No Child Left Behind program. Bush supported Specter in a primary election against a true conservative. He seriously considered nominating Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court, a man who favors affirmative action and has other RINO legal ideas.
Harry Reid has been implacably partisan. He has done everything possible to prevent conservative justices from being appointed. He threatened to shut down the Senate rather than let any conservatives on the court. He has demanded over and over that nominees swear allegiance to Roe v. Wade as a precondition for sitting on any federal court and has never hinted at any willingness to seek a compromise or amicable solution. It's his way or no way.
Now, assuming that both men really know Miers and that she didn't manage to fool one of them, which one do you think is more likely to have compromised on this issue? Which one do you think stuck implacably to his political ideals and which one do you think let it slide a little? If one of them loosened up his ideals on behalf of a pal, which one would it be? Bush is the compromiser in this pair. Bush is the one who only sees good in people. Heck, Bush thought that Puttin had a good heart. Can you really trust Bush's judgment about his friends?
And even if they did meet in the middle, where would that middle be? Where is the middle between a man who thinks that the constitution subliminally encodes a fundamental right to pull an eight-month old fetus half-way out of a woman's womb and scramble its brains with an ice pick and a man who considered nominating Alberto Gonzales? The middle ground between those two is no one I want sitting on the Supreme Court.
Some people who know a lot more about the law and courts than I do think we can trust Bush in this area. I just don't think we can trust Bush, period.