[TBP]

The criticism isn't that her writing is bad -- it's that there is essentially no writing relevant to the issues that pertain to a Supreme Court nomination. These articles don't help at all in that regard.

She has no identifiable legal philosophy, no identifiable Constitutional theory. As far as we know, she's never written or taught or argued in court on any of these matters. That makes it likely that she can be swayed by what's fashionable among her fellow Justices.

[TeleStraightShooter]

That makes it likely that she can be swayed by what's fashionable among her fellow Justices.

If you were on the SCOTUS would you be swayed like that?

I would only believe she could be swayed if her involvement in nominating all the strict constructionists over the last 5 years was based purely on politics and not her princables.
Is that what you are saying?

[visualops]

The criticism isn't that her writing is bad

I beg to differ, this thread especially.
I suggest you read the intro to the quoted writings, plus post #1. That her writing is bad is precisely the point made. And, it's meant to show an inferior intellect, concurring with Coulter's assessment that Miers is "a mediocrity".

What I deplore about all this is the hypocracy of the Right, in not giving the woman a fair hearing and up-down vote. I think it would be a disatrous sign of weakness to withdraw the nomination. Mistake or not, I believe it would be worse to backtrack.