I don’t have many deep thoughts about the Miers withdrawal, mostly because I didn’t have strong feelings about the Miers nomination. I do think this exposes, perhaps more than anything, the weakness of the Bush administration on its right flank, also its vulnerability to cronyism charges. Both, of course, could become important in 2006.

But, as to the merits of Miers herself, the question that liberals need to ask is whether to be happy or sad. Spencer Overton, thinks that “Miers would have developed a judicial philosophy that would be better for people of color than the approach of any other possible Bush nominee” and wonders whether “moderates and progressives fail[ed] by not actively defending Miers against critics on the extreme right?”

Constitutional Law maven Jack Balkin lists the following as possible replacements:

One assumes that Messrs. [J. Harvie] Wilkinson and [Michael] McConnell are now among the front runners for a Supreme Court appointment. Michael Luttig, Edith Jones and Janice Rodgers Brown are also in the hunt, but they are more likely to raise hackles with the Gang of 14.

And don’t forget Attorney General Gonzales, who suddenly is looking good, even though Democrats will be (justly) upset about the role he played in the Administration’s detention and interrogation policies.

For what’s it worth, my thoughts on these candidates’ being compared to Miers: Wilkinson (undecided), McConnell (better), Luttig (undecided), Jones (worse), Brown (worse), Gonzales (undecided). If this opposition leads to Michael McConnell being nominated, it’ll all have been worth it. But Overton’s point is taken under advisement–Democrats should be careful at being too gleeful at this development.