Miers: I'm waiting for the hearings

I am neutral on the Miers nomination.

Check out TTLB for what other bloggers are saying.

I want to see how she does in the hearings.

Even Miers supporter Hugh Hewitt knows that the stakes are high for the hearings. Excerpt:

Many of the arguments against Miers are simply bogus, part and parcel of a neoBorking of a fine public servant and accomplished member of the Bar as well as the White House staff in a time of war. The best arguments against Miers are political, and on that basis, can be rejected as unpersuasive after pause and serious consideration, and provided that Miers acquits herself well in her hearings.
[ed. note - emphasis mine]

Am I concerned the nomination was a mistake?

Yes.

It seems the decision was made with too little consultation where negative issues could have been raised and certainly the roll out of the nomination has been badly botched.

I'm also concerned that people who would normally be supportive of the administration are concerned. It is one thing if your detractors cast doubt on your nominee, that is expected, but when your friends are carping, you have a problem.

I'm also concerned that there have been complaints about her responses to the "written exam" given by the Judiciary Committee. I'm not a lawyer and I have to take the word of experts who believe her answers were not up to par.

Nonetheless, I do feel some of the criticism has been well over the top. This morning, I came across Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle and here are a few thoughts that resonated with me:

It's not enough that the National Law Journal named Miers one of America's 50 most influential women lawyers -- before she worked in the White House. In the world according to Bork, she's supposed to be a member in good standing of a select club of conservative ideologues/legal scholars.
.......
... there is something refreshing about Bush's decision not to select a nominee from a prescribed list of appellate judges.

Brad Blakeman, a Washington lobbyist who worked with Miers in the White House, noted that if the Founding Fathers had wanted only judges to serve on the Big Bench, they could have written that into the Constitution -- except they didn't.

I think some critics have dismissed the nomination outright because she didn't have the right school in the education section of her resume or the right jobs in the employment section of her CV.

The poor response to her essay answers worry me. And if she doesn't do well in the hearings then I'll move from neutral to against. But until then, let's all take a chill pill and wait for the hearings.