Bush, Miers, Supreme Court

Let me get this straight: the complaints against the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court consist of:

1) She’s not a judge (i.e. “doesn’t have the background.”) Or, variously, she’s not a “constitutional scholar” like those Justices who have given us such learned decisions as Kelo v. New London.

2) She’s a long-time advisor to Bush (i.e. a “crony.”)

3) She’s someone who didn’t show up in the crystal balls of our esteemed pundits and experts. They’ve been shown up by Bush and are embarrassed and angry about that.

4) Harry Reid likes her, therefore she must be a stealth liberal moonbat.

5) She’s an evangelical Christian, therefore she’s a not-so-stealth right wing wacko.

6) She’s not stunningly physically attractive. This one puzzles even me. I mean, Ruth Bader Ginsberg somehow got on the Court, didn’t she?

Did I miss anything?