There is just no way to make the argument that she was the best pick and many reasons to believe that she is not only a poor choice, but intentionally so (for example, her age implies to me that she's just meant to be a "place-holder"). If Dems are smart they will smell the opportunity.
It depends on the definition of "best".
A 60 year-old woman is expected to live longer than a 60 year-old man. So, Miers (age wise) is equivalent to a 53 year-old man....not much different that Roberts, who was hailed as someone to occupy the bench for year to come.
A "place holder" until the day that Hillary (bite my tongue) gets to choose her successor?
When you get to be President, you may have the privilege of deciding who is the best pick. You seem to have made up your mind rather prematurely, or maybe you are just disappointed that Bush has avoided the knock down, drag out battle that would have resulted from the nomination of a documented conservative, as opposed to a simply philosophical conservative.
It depends on whose BEST PICK you mean. YOUR BEST PICK would be different than the President's BEST PICK or Ann Coulter's BEST PICK or Lawrence Tribe's BEST PICK.
IF you want MOST QUALIFIED that is something else BUT even the MOST QUALIFIED PICK is subjective. I doubt that ROBERTS was the MOST QUALIFIED pick if Schumer was doing the picking.
The point I am trying to make is that if your BEST QUALIFIED PICK would be a Harvard Law Grad at the TOP of his class who has a "HISTORY" of conservative judicial philosophy that is ONLY your pick. George Bush on the other hand thinks CHARACTER is the most important ingredient. That in essence is why he nominated her. He thinks she is the most qualified based on her character.