Maybe our president can't be really happy unless he's trying to make a tough sell, to win an argument against strong opposition, to prove that he has the clout and the smarts to get his way.

If that's the case, he would have been only moderately pleased with the nice little hayride given by the U.S. Senate to John Roberts Jr. en route to the chief justice's chair.

Roberts, by force of intellect and experience, simply overwhelmed skeptics bothered by views he had articulated on behalf of past Republican administrations, and as well by his reluctance to show his philosophical cards. He was confirmed with unanimous Republican support in the Senate and with the backing of about half the chamber's Democrats.

So with another seat on the Supreme Court to fill, President Bush must have decided to liven things up. Ergo, Harriet Miers.

Of course it's not the Democrats who are working themselves into a lather. Instead we're hearing the piteous cries of red-meat conservatives who can't understand why a red-meat conservative president hasn't given them a Supreme Court nominee conspicuously primed to battle the forces of wimpish liberalism.

Bush assures his disgruntled allies on the right that Miers in fact would be precisely the kind of justice they're looking for. He knows her legal work, knows her values, knows her to be solidly conservative in her religion. Yet this is a nomination in trouble. Miers will have to muster an impressive show during her Senate grilling, if she gets that far, to allay disappointment among those who thought the president owed them a certified Scalia or Thomas clone to replace Sandra Day O'Connor in the court's swing seat.

What about those of us for whom the name of David Souter, who surprised the first President Bush by steering to the left after joining the court, doesn't trigger paroxysms of outrage? In other words, what are Americans who don't want O'Connor to be replaced by a judicial Neanderthal supposed to think of Harriet Miers?

Certainly she seems decent, hard-working, honest and thoughtful. Her legal career, if not stellar, would have to rate as accomplished -- president of the Texas bar, co-managing partner of a large firm, White House counsel.

But for the job she seeks, qualities and achievements of that sort ought to be par for the course. True distinction as a lawyer, especially in grappling with constitutional matters, doesn't seem as if it's too much to ask of a Supreme Court nominee, and so far there's not much evidence Miers makes that grade. Where are the brilliantly argued briefs, the penetrating law review pieces, the wise opinions rendered from the bench? No need to bust a gut looking.

The cold truth, of course, is that Miers has landed this nomination solely because of her special service to George W. Bush -- coupled with what obviously was the priority Bush gave to choosing a woman to follow in O'Connor's footsteps. (Among the other reasons for such a choice, it confounds critics who can be accused of sexism -- an accusation Laura Bush already has leveled.)

Miers has been a loyal Bush functionary for at least 10 years. She favored him with cloying, gushy notes, sprinkled with over-the-top flattery. Maybe she's just so pluperfectly nice that she couldn't help herself. But in any event, she was well-rewarded with inclusion in the inner circle of Bush's aides.

There's another twist to their relationship that makes her problematic as a choice for the court. Miers was Bush's personal attorney. We don't know the details as to what kind of work she did for him -- surely that will be a matter of interest to the Judiciary Committee -- but it's safe to say that she would have had an unusually close look, from the inside, at Bush's personal affairs.

It's been reported, for example, that she was the point person in handling the first round of inquiries into Bush's National Guard service -- the source of so much dispute as to whether he had met his obligation or had blown part of it off. What other potential embarrassments has she been privy to? Some senators will have fun trying to find out.

Given her background, it's hard to see Miers as someone certain to rule independently and impartially if Bush's interests were ever at stake before the court.

There must be senators of the Democratic persuasion who take cold comfort in Bush's assurances that Miers is a conservative rock of ages. Perhaps they hope she'll have a conversion experience, with the scales falling from her eyes. Or perhaps, as silent as they are, they just enjoy watching a civil war among the elephants.

That's no doubt a treat. But there ought to be some senators ready to explain why they're troubled at the prospect of a seat on the Supreme Court being granted to someone who from all appearances is being compensated for her loyalty, and perhaps even for her discretion.

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.