Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court this morning.
NBC’s chief legal correspondent, Pete Williams, said the move was exceptional, noting that only seven of 150 nominations have been withdrawn in the history of the court.
Miers had been expected to respond today to a new set of questions from senators after her first responses were criticized by Senate Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA), and senior Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Various members found her answers to the first questionnaire to be "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."
The committee had scheduled Nov. 7 confirmation hearings for her, but Specter and Leahy said Miers’ answers to their original questions were “incomplete” and “insufficient,” one of several setbacks Miers faced over her nomination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Miers has been criticized by some conservatives for not having a record of conservative judicial philosophy on issues like abortion and affirmative action. At the same time, some had questioned an aggressive White House strategy to win over religious right leaders.
While none of the Senate’s 55 Republicans had announced opposition to her, a number of Senators, including Sam Brownback (R-KS), Trent Lott (R-MS) and Rick Santorum (R-PA), had withheld endorsements, with Brownback suggesting he was leaning against voting for her.
Meanwhile, groups like Concerned Women of America had called for her withdrawal.
***
This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - DJRadiohead
This was a given. She had no core constituency. Republicans didn't trust her. Democrats were unimpressed by her resume.
2 - Nancy
I guess Bush figured he could cram her down the throats of Republicans, just like he has been other issues w/Democrats. This will save some flack on his butt, but not for any common sense or sensitivity on his part. If this doesn't alert the GOP to the fact that their Fearless Leader is a loose cannon, who cares nothing for any interests - including theirs - not his own, nothing will.
3 - Michael J. West
This one was such a miscalculation that even Bush may have to admit it.
4 - Nancy
He never admits he was wrong, even when it's so obvious it's embarrassing - to everyone but him, that is.
5 - Tom
Why was it a miscalculation? The constitution doesn't say that it even has to be a judge that goes to to supreme court? The President can nominate whoever he wants to.
Why do we put what amount to lawyers with robes on such high pedestals that only the most great among them (and therefore so much superior to us) get to become the ones that evaluate law.
6 - Michael J. West
The President certainly does have the right to nominate whoever he wants, Tom, but this was a political miscalculation. The President made a selection that managed to alienate the very people whose support he depended on the most.
The reason that only a select few lawyers get to evaluate the law is that we expect those who interpret the Constitution to have the highest possible level of expertise on the document and its applications. It's not such a difficult concept.
7 - Temple Stark
Please massah, don't throw me into that there briar patch.
I can guarantee the next candidate will be worse if you're a democrat and better if you're a conservative.
8 - Z.Z. Bachman
The real fireworks will begin with the next nomination. Make no mistake, he will be taking to the Left head on. He seems to find his inner strength in that sort of approach. The Senate best hunker down, "Nuclear Option" is in the wind... nothing like the smell of naplam in the morning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ZZ Bachman / ZardozZ News & Satire Portal
Have a Blog? Ring Surf it @ ZZ OpenRing
9 - DJRadiohead
Bless you, Temple. One of my best friends in the whole world loves to toss the "briar patch" phrase around at times like this.
I completely agree with your analysis. He will go (further) to the right on this one.
10 - LokisDottir
Miers so quickly became a political hot potato that Bush had to have been scrambling to find a way to dump her. "Reluctantly accepted" my asp! His claim that because she had no judicial experience, Miers would only interpret the Constitution instead of making law from the Bench is laughable. (note to Shrubya: All Court decisions set a legal precedent, which directly affect the course of Law. That's why people take their cases to the Supreme Court in the first place!)
11 - Natalie Davis
That is what I fear and expect. In fact, I would be surprised if blood do esn't end up on the Senate chamber floor over this one.
12 - Maurice
I'm suprised no one is saying this was a ploy (Karl Rove's master plan!)from the beginning to get a conservative wacko in the SC.
13 - Rich Powers
The problem is that many "conservatives" these days aren't truly conservative; a judge deemed conservative by Bush is probably one who'd support an expansion of federal powers at the expense of liberties or states' rights.
We need a nominee in the vein of Rehnquist, one who supports small government and states' rights.
14 - Natalie Davis
Mr. Maurice, no one may be saying it, but some of us indeed suspected that could be the plan. But why lob theories today? The puppetmaster likely is having a tough enough day.
15 - Maurice
When you say puppetmaster do you mean Bush or Rove?
16 - Natalie Davis
Bush's Brain, of course: Karl Rove.
17 - RogerMDillion
"Why do we put what amount to lawyers with robes on such high pedestals that only the most great among them (and therefore so much superior to us) get to become the ones that evaluate law."
Tom's right. Why would we want great attorneys on the Supreme Court?
Who do you recommend, Tom? Larry H. Parker or the motorcycle accident attorney?
18 - Cunning Linguist
Bush has pissed off his base and the Democrats are going to pay for it. GOP voters are tired of the people they elected trying to play nice with the lefties. They won the election and now they're going to start acting because they are finally getting the message with this Miers incident.
The next nomineee will be an arch conservative and the GOP will put up a real fight to get them onto the court. Sorry liberals but there won't be any socialist, pedophile loving members of the ACLU named by Bush to the court.
The next nominee will be revenge for what the Dems did to Bork.
Payback is a bitch ain't t libs
19 - Dave Nalle
You live in a dream world, CL. The nominee may be conservative on some issues, but Bush is not going to nominate anyone who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Dave
20 - Nancy
Why, Dave? I don't understand your thinking on this. Please explain. Thanks. He's always put out that he's strenuously anti-choice/pro-life.
21 - Dave Nalle
Bush is pro-choice. There's no question about it. The entire posture that he's pro-life is a sham to placate the far right. Look at his behavior in office, paying lip service to their demands but never giving in on anything of substance. Look at his family history. His wife, his mother and his father are all pro-choice. His father had to walk the same fine line while in office, though he got away with being just on the other side of it.
Dave
22 - Nancy
If he's so pro-choice, how come his flunkies in the FDA, etc. have been so assiduously blocking the morning-after OTC meds, etc.?
23 - DJRadiohead
I have never thought of Bush as anything but Pro-Life. I would be shocked if his nominee was not, as well.
24 - Dave Nalle
It'll be interesting to see how far he goes with this next nominee. I wouldn't put it outside his personality type to nominate an outright and open pro-lifer this time with impeccable qualifications in every other area just to stick it to the hard right folks who didn't back Miers.
Dave
25 - Nancy
Now I'm confused: pro-lifer or pro-choicer?