Some people (*COUGH*K-Lo*COUGH*) were stunned by the pick. As has been said by many before me, conservatives have aimed to reform the system. They wanted (with "charming naivete") to see a justice who could follow the constitution even if it meant that they would not always agree with that justice's decisions. The wanted someone who would espouse a philosophy of law that would have influence far beyond a vote on a particular case.
For example: I think that honest conservatives want a 'reversal' of Roe, whereby the court devolves the power to the states (where it resided before Roe.) They do not seek a decision that is the 'inversion' of Roe, i.e., a SCOTUS-imposed sanction against abortion.
In the wake of their shock and dissapointment, intemperate words have been spoken. The rift needs to be healed, but don't expect people to kiss and make up. The opportunity to appoint to SCOTUS does not come to every president. Bush had many, many people standing by him, giveing lots of time and treasure, taking lots of hits, so that he could get the opportunity to appoint TWO.
And for the second pick the best that we get is, "Trust me."
I am not saying I disagree with NROers that Meirs should not sit in SCOTUS. I am saying that in the war of damaging rhetorical smears NROers threw the first gout of mud. It's kinda rich that Jonah is now employing the "whoever started it" let's kiss and make up when no one in the Corner called Brookheiser on his Caligulan smear.
I am turned cold to thier arguments, no matter how persuasive they might be, by the nasty attack. Does this mean I am going to refuse to support the GOP in 06 and 08? Or conversely quit reading NRO? Of course not. Does this mean I am going reflexively support Miers? No, I am holding to my original decision, to wait until the hearing and use my best judgement then contact my Senators and ask them to support or not support her which is what the President has asked. When he said "Trust me" it was not "trust me and abdicate your judgement completely" as Mark Levin said. Mr. Bush has said: wait until the hearings, you'll be surprised. I sincerely hope so, all though I doubt I will be. I would hope that the many branches of the GOP, from conservatives to libertarians to hard line party men would stop attacking each other, the nominee, and the President and debate like grown ups.
If the debate were about her judicial philosophy and not about her "qualifications", cronyism, gender, religious conviction, or any other peripheral consideration, then I think most would agree that she is not who we would want sitting on the highest bench on the land. I think party men like Hewitt and Ruffini are big enough to say "we were wrong" if at the hearings her judicial philosophy is shown to be wandering and incoherent. By the same token some folks at NRO have all ready indicated they have closed thier minds to the possibility they may be wrong. *cough* Frum, Levin *cough* I am happy to see not all NROers are like that (Goldberg, Lopez and Podhoretz spring to mind)
Like Lileks says Miers is gonna hurt Bush when he seeks his third term. Ha!