Suit yourself. I don't see a lot of intellect there for your to hang your hat on, just a lot of noise, but it's your choice.
That's what I'm afraid of, but you and yours think there's no problem.
Actually, if you look back, I haven't expressed any opinion at all on whether Miers was a good choice or not. My opinions here have been objections to this notion that Ann Coulter is somehow especially qualified, either as a political pundit or legal expert, to pass judgement, or that her judgement, once passed, is especially worth listening to. It is not - Ann Coulter has no intellect to speak of. She is a mouth, who specializes in selling books by saying things carefully calculated to be outrageous to a certain segment of the population, while simultaneously designed to tell another segment the sorts of things they desperately want to hear.
As a result, she is worthless as a pundit, because she is far too busy feeding red meat to her audience to ever manage anything like an objective analysis of the political landscape. As a legal expert, she has no particular expertise, as indicated by her largely undistinguished (and brief) legal career - this is opposed to groups such as the ACLJ and the Federalist Society, composed of actual practicing lawyers and legal scholars, who have offered their endorsement of this nomination.
Basically, Miers wasn't my first choice either. But I'll be goddamned if I'm going to mistake Ann Coulter for some sort of expert on anything other than maybe selling books. You wanna circle her little boat and whip yourself into a frenzy every time she throws a little chum in the water, be my guest, but I'm not interested.
I have presented clear evidence that she is much much more of a constitutional expert than Miers; if her persona puts you off so much and cannot see her opinions objectively, that's your problem.