It ain't Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I'm not thrilled with the Miers selection but dollars to doughnuts its probably a far better selection that anyone a President Gore or a President Kerry would have nominated.

I liked Jonah Goldberg's (NRO) point here - even though Miers may very well be a "reliable conservative vote" -

...Without casting aspersions on others, that's not good enough for me (and it may be grotesquely unfair to Miers). If all that's required is a reliable vote, National Review and the Heritage Foundation have plenty of interns who will do just fine...It says that arguments and due dilligence don't matter. What matters is that "our side" gets its voice on the Court, period.

This sounds to me a bit like the "results-oriented conservatism" some on the web are touting in Miers' defense...Conservatives, I thought, were supposed to believe ideas have consequences, that American institutions -- chief among them the Supreme Court and the Constitution -- have specific and organic roles to play in the culture which depend on intellectual honesty, opposition to cant, and a dispassionate rejection of the politicization of the law. The reliable vote argument -- absent other rationales -- runs counter to all of these.
...
This is not to say I am against reliable votes on the court, but the reason why they are reliable is to me vitally important.

I'm not as bothered as Jonah about results-oriented conservatism but there was an opportunity here to do both get a reliable vote and an exceptional jurist who would help transform the direction of the Court by being a champion of objective originalism. Absent that I WILL take a reliable vote - means we just have to keep winning elections.

Deacon at Powerline has a good point - we aren't the loony moonbat left - we've said our piece. Miers is the nominee. We should move on.

The only realistic scenario in which Miers isn't nominated I think is one where she voluntarily requests that her nomination be withdrawn. Why would she do that? If, contrary to Deacon's sentiments, the conservative outcry surges and she believes that her nomination will do significant damage to her President and the causes she believes in, it may be a possibility. SCOTUS would be the crowning achievement of any legal career and for a woman whose two primary pillars appear to be her work and her faith it would be a pretty big disappointment. So not likely.

However, I would not put it past her - a woman whom many have lauded for her humility and faith - to say my nomination isn't worth the cost of splintering the conservative right and withdraw. That would be I think the consummate act of loyalty and, ironically, probably prove to her critics on the right that we were wrong.