I think the debate here should be straightforward, instead of worrying about whether her law firm's PAC donated to Hillary or whether her church is pro-life.
The first and most fundamental question is, do we need a seasoned conservative jurist with decades of experience? Or is there merit to the argument that the Constitution is over-analyzed and we need some folks from outside the jurist caste to breathe some basic sensibility back into decisions (such as demanding that interstate commerce involve both commerce and interstate movement).
If someone decides that yes, only a jurist will suffice, then the debate is over at that point for that person.
The second question is, having decided that key point, could Bush have even nominated a constructionist conservative with a documented track record and gotten them confirmed in today's Senate environment? Or is a stealth candidate necessary?
Third, could Bush have nominated a male nominee given that some RINOs wanted a female nominee to replace O'Conner? If he could not have gotten a male nominee confirmed, then that eliminates Luttig, et al.
And fourth, if we get this far, does Miers have the experience and temperment to be a suitable alternative to the jurist caste, if there is agreement that such a person is viable? That is where the hearings will come into play.
I think if everyone focused on those four questions, we could eliminate a lot of the current bickering and have a better debate.