TOM W. BELL offers a post-Miers prediction, while Dan Markel explodes Miers-process myths.

Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus thinks that Michael McConnell is “near-ideal post-Miers nominee.”

I’d prefer Alex Kozinski — or my perennial favorite, Eugene Volokh — but Bush may feel otherwise.

Howard Kurtz observes:

Miers’s 24 days in the searing spotlight demonstrated many things. One, that the conservative punditocracy is a powerful force, and never more so than when it decides to break with a Republican president. Two, that the normally disciplined White House can look amateurish when it makes as many mistakes as it did on this nomination. Three, that a Supreme Court candidate may be able to survive a thin resume, but not also a bungled questionnaire, unimpressive meetings with senators, an attempt to sell her on religious grounds, gushing letters to her boss, and no trace of ever trying to seriously address constitutional issues. Four, that nominating cronies is risky business. Five, that the party seems divided (former senator Jack Danforth told CNN that the activists’ attacks were “mean” and “outrageous,” though they simply used the power of their words to undermine a shaky nominee). Six, that presidents really do seem snakebitten in their second terms (see Watergate, Iran-contra, Lewinsky).

Yes. Miers was a weak candidate, who might have been confirmed anyway if the White House had been on its game. But it wasn’t.