I oppose the Miers nomination

The Truth Laid Bear asks, so: I oppose the Miers nomination.

This post has been updated. I originally said I was neutral, leaning toward oppose. I've decided that oppose it is. For many reasons. My first gut reaction was to oppose her because I thought Bush had blown his chance at nominating someone who would really be on my side.

I would not go so far as to say that Miers is "about as sharp as a sack of wet peanuts," but from what I do know, she doesn't seem to be as sharp as she should be. I find myself wholly in agreement with this statement from Eric's Grumbles Before the Grave:

I am an elitist (and don't mind saying so). I want my elected representatives, my judges, my cabinet members to be the best and brightest, not the lowest common denominator. Miers is not the best and brightest. It has nothing to do with what school she attended, before someone jumps salty. I don't care what degree you have, or what school you got it from. Her written grammar in her questionnaire response to the Senate is awful. Her understanding of the basics of constitutional law seems even worse. Compare her to John Roberts and tell me she is the "best and brightest". You can't.

Emphasis is mine, of course.

And in spite of reassurances to the contrary*, I haven't been offered any real proof that she would rule on certain issues based on the constitution rather than her personal beliefs. Even if her personal beliefs are not contrary to mine, ruling that way is not for the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter. When it comes to the establishment of law, her personal beliefs are no more nor less valid than any of the judges who fall on the liberal end of the spectrum.

Not that my opinion matters, or anything.

*When other judges and politicians start telling me to "just trust us," or some variation thereof, I am immediately suspicious.

UPDATE: Click the link for The Truth Laid Bear Miers aggragation of blog posts.