Edward Morrissey (Captain's Quarters), writes a guest editorial for the Washinton Post about the storm unleashed by the Miers nomination. "Most conservatives feel betrayed after working so hard to get enough Republicans elected to confirm almost any nominee," he writes, capturing my sentiment exactly.

In a blog entry Morrissey states, "What did we get? Another long-term Bush buddy getting a lifetime job on the basis of proximity instead of excellence." Later he adds, "Bush blew it, but Miers may still surprise us, so let's not compound the mistake."

In his WAPO column, Morrissey delinieates Loyalists, such as Hugh Hewitt, who have defended the Bush nominee, from the Rebel Alliance, who want to see Miers' nomination either withdrawn or defeated.

Responding to critics of Miers' nomination, Hewitt writes a lengthy post worth considering.

"I imagine that Justice Miers will vote most often with the new Chief, and that the new Chief will vote most often as did the old Chief, and that the SCOTUS will shift significantly to the right as a result. So what is the problem?" he writes. "I am quite certain that Harriet Miers has all the intellectual firepower she needs to join SCOTUS and get the decisions correct."

According to Morrissey, some think the president's move demonstrates a hidden brilliance that may take a decade or more to yield fruit.

"I think Miers is a punching bag meant to strengthen the backs and spines of the GOP, in order to get ready for a big match," writes the Anchoress in a recent blog entry. Previously she suggested Bush's hidden plan is based on an imminent third Supreme Court Vacancy. "Stevens is ancient. ANCIENT. And Bader-Ginsberg is reputedly unwell. Breyer may keel over from sheer boringness!"

"Believe that something greater than yourself is at work, that there are things seen and unseen, and that more is at work here than we know. Sometimes things happen that are not so easy to comprehend, at first." Along a similar vein, Beth lays the strategy out here.

On the other side of the fence are bloggers, such as Professor Bainbridge, who consider the stakes too high for compromise. Oppose the nomination? Yes! He writes, "This is a fight we can afford. It's the right fight. Those of us who oppose Miers need to keep on fighting."

Michelle Malkin is holding back, conserving energy and laying off the Harriet Miers nomination for a "brief spell". She'll be back.

A Certain Slant of Light calls the President to pull Miers from "the game."

Among conservatives, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue called for Bush to withdraw the Miers nomination. Former federal judge Robert Bork - whose nomination to the Supreme Court the Senate rejected in 1987 - described the choice of Miers as "a disaster on every level."

There is also Charles (Withdraw This Nominee) Krauthammer.

One issue the "Rebel Alliance" faces is a formidable opponent whose nominee is likely to gain the support of Democrats. Captain Ed comments,

"Forcing a showdown with a President who has stared down Putin, Chirac, Saddam Hussein, the UN, and Tom Daschle wastes time and political capital, especially when he holds all the cards. He will get Miers on the bench, and probably on a voice vote on the floor of the Senate."

PowerlineBlog notes,

But the concern with Miers is not that we know she won't be a conservative, it's that we don't have a strong basis for thinking that she will be.... We're disappointed because we expected not to be agnostic about a Bush Supreme Court nominee's conservatism.

Much speculation concerns why Ms. Miers, as president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, urged American Bar Association execs not to decree a pro-choice position but to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group's full membership. Judge Ed Kinkeade sees that as evidence of her pro-life beliefs: "Why's she going to take on that fight otherwise? Didn't help her politically."

According to Kyleen Wright at Texans for Life, Harriet Miers gave $150 to the organization — then known as Texans United for Life — in 1989. Miers was a bronze patron for their annual dinner in which Henry Hyde was the keynote speaker. She was listed in the program as a bronze sponsor.

So what's the problem?

To start with, see Paul Deignan (info theory) here, here and here. Among the issues he raises are the Bush Administration's consideration of pro-abortion Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as a possible candidate for the Supreme Court and Miers' 1989 contribution to Al Gore's campaign.

Family Research Center reports that The Chronicle of Higher Education published a story that spoke of Miers "playing a key role" in the late 1990s in establishing the Louise B. Raggio lectureship at Southern Methodist University, Miss Miers' alma mater. Among those tapped to enlighten young law students were Gloria Steinem, founder of Ms. Magazine and a veteran campaigner for liberal abortion laws.

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said, "As more influential conservatives are recognizing Harriet Miers to be the wrong person for the Supreme Court, we once again call upon her to give evidence of her sound conservative judicial philosophy or withdraw her name from the confirmation process."

Right Wing Agenda concludes,

The point is we expected President Bush to nominate a no-compromise, unapologetic strict constructionist justice. Miers does not qualify under this vigorous standard; no one knows what she is!

• Bauer Challenges Miers' Stand on Abortion - Oct 10, 2005
• Aggregating the Supreme conservative controversy - Oct 06, 2005
• Supreme Court Nominee Miers and Abortion - Oct 05, 2005
• McCullough says Miers is a Pro-Life Evangelical - Oct 04, 2005
• Rehnquist Had NO Prior Judge Experience Either - Oct 04, 2005
• Good News? - Oct 03, 2005
• Invisible Woman To Replace O'Connor? - Oct 03, 2005
• Miers Views on Abortion are 'Consistent with that of Evangelical Christians' - Oct 03, 2005