IIRC, she’s the president’s personal attorney, a different and separate job from White House counsel. She’s a close advisor. And she writes such sweet cards and notes. She’s probably very easy to work with, very accommodating, knows his moods, competent but not a brilliant jurist.
Considering she vets all of the President’s judicial nominees, I have no doubt that she shares many of the PResident’s ideas on judicial restraint and Constitutional originalism.
But then again, even though I have confidence in her ability, the fact that the interview process in the Senate would compromise the PResident’s executive privelege would mean that the process could proceed in only two ways:
1) Miers go ahead while exposing the President.
2) Miers withdraws to protect the President’s privilege.
I have to admit, the President didn’t quite think this nomination through. It’d be the equivalent of say nominating a CIA agent (someone like Johnny Spann, Wild Bill Donovan, or Cofer Black not Plame or any of those politics before nation traitors) as UN Ambassador:
“Tell us your qualifications, Mr. ...uh... “Smith.”
“Well, in [redacted] I was responsible for [censored] and conducted meetings with [eyes only]. For that action I recieved the [classified] and a jar of eyeballs.”