[jyl]

A few preliminary thoughts from me:

1. No prior judicial experience whatsoever. A successful career as a corporate lawyer at a mid-to-larger-sized regional law firm. I realize that many Supreme Court jurists have had no prior judicial experience, but I personally prefer Supreme Court justices to have been lower court judges, as a sort of test of their temperament. Seems to me that to jump straight to the highest court in the land, you should be something truly unique and special.

2. Probably has little to no paper trail on major judicial issues, and the Administration will probably use attorney-client privilege to hide her opinions as White House Counsel. They probably hope she will be a "stealth candidate". The extent to which she will have to recuse herself in future cases may become an issue.

3. My guess is that the initial reaction will be that Bush nominated a long-time Texas crony, rather than that he nominated an accomplished woman lawyer. John Roberts has just set such a high bar in terms of professional achievement, scholarship, and photogenicity (if that is a word) that Miers risks coming off as a droopy-faced in-house lawyer.

Overall, I guess I'm not sold, to say the least, on this nominee. But I'll wait and see what other information comes out.