Yes, we haven't heard her speak yet -- and she's 60 yeras old. Which is a very significant piece of evidence. The most logical conclusion is that constitutional law is "not her thing," which means that she lacks the preparation others would have undoubtedly brought to the position. Why should we have to settle for a "quick study" when we could have had a life time of preparation?
You might consider another view: Stop Whining – Right Choices and the Courts >/a>
Further, Miers brings to the Court skills and experience that should not be dismissed so blithely by the intelligentsia. In addition to the flashier constitutional issues, the Supreme Court docket includes more than a few cases affecting the business world. Many past decisions sent the law dramatically off kilter in ways that undermine our economy and sap our national wealth. Antitrust cases on tying and cases at the intersection of intellectual property and competition law, for example, have had enormous impact on American business. Some have created difficulties for business, and indirectly for consumers, because the justices simply didn’t understand the practical implications of their decisions.
aBootes: "Old people need not apply to SCOTUS".
Only younger people "know" about constitutional law?
Did you vote for President BUSH? If so, sticking to the subject of judges, why don't you trust his judgment on this matter? Has he appointed bad judges in the past? Didn't this woman Miers vet out Janice Rogers Brown, John Roberts, et al?