Jacob Levy emerges from his hiatus once again to post his thoughts on the nomination of Harriet Miers. Listening to C-Span all day, I continue to think that she will be confirmed by the end of November. For better or worse.

White House Counsel Harriet Miers will replace Justice O'Connor on the court. With almost no research, I confidently predict that she will be confirmed by at least 65 senators, and take the bench within two months.

That makes it a little late to play this game passed to me by Angus, where we try to name three good picks to replace Justice O'Connor who haven't yet gotten much if any attention in the press. Which is just as well, since besides Adrian Vermeule, I don't know who my other two picks would have been. David Currie would be a tempting choice-- the court needs more good historians-- but I think I'd rather see two or three more books of the Constitution in Congress series than ten years of Currie opinions.

UPDATE: Tom Goldstein thinks Miers will be rejected by the senate. The more I learn the more I am willing to retract my immediate and confident assertion. I am still not sure I can count 41 or 51 senators who will oppose her nomination, but I am no longer positive.

UPDATE TWO: As does Jacob Levy (via e-mail):

I predict she doesn't get confirmed at all.

This becomes the crony-too-far; the hearings become an all-purpose indictment of the administration's predilictions for people whose heart Bush knows but who don't know anything themselves-- and especially Michael Brown; the point gets stressed that the criteria for White House counsel and Friend of Bush are irrelevant for an SC appointment, with much debate over the proper amount of deference the president is due resolving into "not this much;" and unflattering comparisons are drawn with Roberts, viz. "We were willing to confirm someone without knowing his views, if he had a top-flight resume; someone with no record who doesn't have that resume won't get a pass."