On Monday President Bush nominated his White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, 60, to be the next nominee to the Supreme Court. The nomination had barely hit the street when leading conservative pundits began to question, oppose and vilify Miers nomination. Everyone from David Frum to Bill Kristol to Pat Buchanan had something bad to say about Bush's bypassing of perceived movement conservatives in favor of his "right-hand" woman. But three days into the feeding frenzy, you may be surprised to know that I think Miers will probably be an excellent Supreme Court justice.

 Now very little of my tentative conclusion has anything to do with Miers herself. Very little is known about her right now and you will continue to see dribs and drabs of her policy positions floating out over the next days and weeks.

 My support of this nomination stems not from anything I know about Miers but from several arguments about President Bush and where I believe the court is going in the future.

 First, those who fear that Harriet Miers will be another David Souter are probably wrong. Bush 43 has no intention of committing the two big mistakes that his father made, namely raising taxes and appointing a judge in David Souter who was already leftist or drifted there over time. But President Bush knows Miers much more intimately than Bush 41 knew David Souter. This, in fact, may be one of the reasons for the nomination. Despite the criticisms of cronyism, Bush did the right thing in appointing someone he knows well. One man's cronyism is another's well-informed choice. If the phrase "hold your friends close and your enemies closer" has any application to Supreme Court nominations, it might be. "Hold your nominees closer than the ones you pass over." Bush knows Harriet Miers and still nominated her. This should be a good sign.

 The reason it is a good sign is that Bush has generally nominated solid conservatives to the courts. Miguel Estrada, Janet Rogers-Brown, Priscilla Owen all served to send the message that Bush wants conservatives on the courts. John Roberts was a superb pick for Chief Justice, a man who possesses what conservatives have always said they believed in, a minimalist view of the judiciary.

 Conservatives are angry right now because they perceive President Bush to be bypassing movement conservatives for judicial minimalists like Roberts and Miers. But Bush is simply following through with his goal to nominate people who "will not legislate from the bench. "If this is true, conservatives will get what they have always wanted, power returned to the legislative branch. What they will not get is conservatism imposed from the bench, if that is what they are looking for.

 Another thing to remember is that this is 2005, not 1989. Bush 41 had to be taught conservatism from Ronald Reagan and much of it didn't take. David Souter and tax hikes were two clear instances. But the conservative movement is far more aware of the political landscape and judicial activism is far more discredited than in 1989. Though too many judges have drifted from conservative to liberal (Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy), and the Beltway provides much social pressure for doing so, there is much more support for staying the conservative course today, both on the court and outside it. Those of us who want an "originalist" court for the next generation and beyond can only hope for one thing in the near term. What we discover about Harriet Miers will confirm what we already know about George W. Bush. If it does, we have little to fear. If it doesn't, we may have an unravelling Presidency on our hands. I would bet on the former.

  John Pendleton