There's a great article over at OpinionJournal.com about the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Written by Randy E. Barnett, a conservative and professor of law at Boston University, the article addresses the concerns the American people should have with such an unqualified candidate as Miers, and one who is moreover a close friend and confidant of the president.

With all the talk of Roe v. Wade and questions about how conservative Ms. Miers is, along with doubts regarding Miers' evangelical Christian faith, most of America seems to be missing the most important questions, which Barnett addresses masterfully.

As everyone now knows, Ms. Miers has never been a judge before. Supporters of the nomination repeatedly cite Justice Rehnquist, who had also not been a judge. There is, however, a huge difference between the two. Justice Rehnquist was a constitutional scholar, and had extensively studied all aspects of constitutional law and interpretation. Ms. Miers, on the other hand, has no such qualifications -- her conceptions regarding the constitution are not the product of years of extensive study and experience, and are idealistic and academic at best.

Secondly, calls of "cronyism" leveled against Miers largely miss the point. They don't recognize that the greatest danger resulting from Miers' relationship with the president is the probable lack of independence that would result from this. As a close friend of the president, would Miers be capable of rebuking the president as he deprives U.S. citizens of due process as he has done in the case of Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi? Are her beliefs sufficiently developed that she will be able to act as an effective counterforce to expanding executive and legislative power? Would Miers be able to shake off the prejudices and preconceptions that come with having served in the executive branch for a good deal of her career?

Miers' religious beliefs and ideological preferences are not nearly as important as her undeveloped view of the constitution and lack of experience dealing with constitutional issues, as well as her close ties to many members of the executive branch that make it less likely that she would exercise sufficient independence as a justice.

Read the article by Barnett, which goes much more in-depth that my thoughts here, and presents a more complete picture of the situation.