What will a Justice Harriet Miers mean for sentencing jurisprudence?

Getting this week off to a fast legal start, President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.  (Howard at How Appealing has lots of details and links.)  TalkLeft here and The Volokh Conspiracy here already have interesting comments.

Of course, as detailed in this post, I follow all the SCOTUS transitions with a keen eye on what new blood may mean for sentencing jurisprudence, especially because the absence of Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor has a profound impact on the SCOTUS sentencing head-count.  My sense is that Ms. Miers has no tangible track record on sentencing-related issues.  Similarly, in prior posts, I have suggested it would be valuable for the new nominee to have a criminal law background or experience as a trial judge, but I do not believe Ms. Miers’ personal history includes either of these attributes.

Readers are highly encouraged to use the comments to provide information or reactions to this interesting (and already controversial) news.

UPDATE: SCOTUSblog is off and running with great commentary on the nomination, with Lyle Denniston astutely wondering “whether the American Bar Association will find Miers to be qualified for the Court,” and Tom Goldstein boldly predicting “that she will be rejected by the Senate [and] Justice O’Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.” 

MORE: Larry Solum at Legal Theory Blog has this amazing quote from the Federalist Papers, while Eduardo Penalver speculates that this nomination is “a big fake-out to clear the path for a Gonzalez nomination.”

SLIGHT(?) CORRECTION: Though the extent of her involvement is still to be determined, I have noted in this follow-up post that Harriet Miers may have had some experience with prisoner re-entry issues through her work with Exodus Ministries.