So this Miers. It seems like many conservatives are angry that Miers is not a hard-core federalist society member. And even some liberals fall for the argument that since there is no evidence she spent much time contemplating constitutional law, she is not qualified for the job.
To the first issue: Thank Jesus God almighty she is not one of the kool-aid kids from the federalist society.
To the second issue: Why does this matter whether she has "contemplated" constitutional law publicly? You do not need to have a record of thinking hard about these issues. Just because basic Constitutional law is too complex for television pundits and intenet partisans does not mean it requires years of practice. Constitutional law is not like Electrical Engineering or Nuclear Physics, a smart lawyer can understand the issues at hand. A lack of writing on Constitutional law does not necessarily mean someone does not think or care about Constitutional law or is unable to understand or apply it, rather it more likely indicates that the person does not have a strong view on the best way to interpret the Constitution. And with a conservative appointment, this is a good thing. I hope to see more pragmatic opinions, like O'Conner, rather than (faux) ideological purity, like Scalia.
Not having a public record of journal articles or a stay on the appellate courts makes it hard to evaluate the nominee's views, but it does not make a person unqualified. Isn't this that ellitism that conservatives claim to be offended by? Personally, I think I could do a better job at constitutional analysis than Scalia. But, I also believe that a rock could do a better job.
And Brad and Virginia believe conservatives are angry in part because Georgie B.'s crony appointment makes them look the fool for believing in Him.