pageok
pageok
pageok
Miers Withdraws:

CNN Reports: President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination.

Abdul:
Finally! So this is how the White Sox fans feel.
10.27.2005 10:09am
Been There, Done That:
She should apologize for putting the country through this.
10.27.2005 10:10am
J..:

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

AP story

I'll have Krauthammer, though iirc he wasn't the first, place my bets from now on.
10.27.2005 10:11am
DNL (mail):
Houston loses the WS.
Miers withdraws.

Bad day for Texas.

I bet UT loses this weekend.
10.27.2005 10:12am
magoo (mail):
Fiztgerald for Scotus.....A two-fer: fills vacancy, liberates Rove.
10.27.2005 10:12am
crow (www):
Now let's hope that Richard Epstein will accept the nomination. I want to see Joe Biden's head explode.
10.27.2005 10:14am
tefta (mail):
I hope everybody will be happy with the results of their pogrom against Miers. It seems to me that the rumors about indictments of White House staff must be true and Bush is just choosing the hill he wants to die on.

This is a disaster for world peace. Many people who comment here can't seem to understand that although they are perfect grammarians and brilliant legal scholars.

A destroyed or weakened Bush gives terrorists worldwide hope that a Democrat congress and president is in our immediate future and they'll keep up the killing until they get what they want, an administration that resumes the politics of appeasement and cowering behind the UN.
10.27.2005 10:15am
Nikki (www):
I'm surprised. I thought they would do this, but that they'd wait until any hypothetical indictments.

Supposedly Fitzgerald has leased more office space.
10.27.2005 10:17am
Marcus1:
Reluctant, my %@!*.

I'm thinking Bush wanted something in the news other than his top guys getting indicted.
10.27.2005 10:17am
Q.:
I can't tell if Tefta is being serious, but if it is parody it is very good!
10.27.2005 10:17am
Thinker:
Thank goodness. This is a victory for intellect, accomplishment, and the meritocracy. It is also a political coup. He has a chance now to rise out of these weeks of gloom.

However, he has to come up with a great name!

The talking heads are saying Ted Olsen.
10.27.2005 10:19am
Thinker:
Thank goodness. This is a victory for intellect, accomplishment, and the meritocracy. It is also a political coup. He has a chance now to rise out of these weeks of gloom.

However, he has to come up with a great name!

The talking heads are saying Ted Olsen.
10.27.2005 10:19am
David Maquera (mail) (www):
Given my outspoken criticism against the Harriet Miers nomination, there are a lot of (jubilant) thoughts and comments I could make regarding her withdrawal but will not in the spirit of magnanimity. I only hope Mike McConnell will be nominated and that the Republican Senators have the backbone to plow a path for him to the SCOTUS. BTW, delenda est Syria.
10.27.2005 10:20am
Abdul:
Tefta,

I didn't realize the fate of the free world hung in the balance of Harriet Miers getting appointed to the Supreme Court. Was Judge Bork's shut out what kept communism limping along a few more years?
10.27.2005 10:20am
anonymous coward:
"The talking heads are saying Ted Olsen."

What with independent prosecutors and perjury in the air, that nomination would cap "I love 90's" week, wouldn't it? And Hillary's head would explode.
10.27.2005 10:24am
Victor Davis (mail) (www):
Relief.
10.27.2005 10:25am
BossPup (mail):
Tefta: For the love of God, that is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen. It doesn't matter if you make it or Hewitt makes it, that reasoning still doesn't pass the laugh test. Under your logic, we should support President Bush's actions over the entire policy map, no matter what they may be. It tells us to put on blinders as to whether the individual policy will be good or bad, as the only thing that matter is "to look strong" before the terrorists. What if the president decided to start locking up Arab men, Korematsu style? Could we oppose that, or would we again courting disaster by making Bush look weak?

Your assumption that the terrorists necessarily want a Democratic president and Congress, and that those officials would be less vigorous in prosecuting the war on terror, is also spurious. You most likely overestimate foreign terrorists' understanding of our national politics. And, if less vigorous can be read as not trampling over international treaties concerning torture, etc., then I am all for a change.
10.27.2005 10:25am
PersonFromPorlock:
Tefta,

A poster on FreeRepublic put it even better: "Whenever someone criticizes the President, God kills a kitten. Think of the kittens."
10.27.2005 10:27am
Scott Scheule (mail) (www):
In celebration, I've decided it's perfectly appropriate to attend my Corporations class without clothes.
10.27.2005 10:29am
GMW:
Good afternoon, Mister Justice Garza.

--G.
10.27.2005 10:32am
Huh:
I think this exposes the conservative judicial movement for what it really is: a movement to overturn Roe v. Wade at all costs. Sure, Miers is not qualified. She never was. But it was not until the speeches came out yesterday, with their implicit sympathy for Casey/Roe, that the pressure on the WH heated up enough to force her withdrawal.

Though I've previously been quite frustrated at Democratic obstructionism and attempts to focus on the judicial philosophy of Bush nominees, I think the conversative movement has now made clear that ideology is a perfectly acceptable reason to oppose a nomination.
10.27.2005 10:33am
Rick:
On the Ted Olson comment - I saw him walking away from the white house this morning.
10.27.2005 10:33am
Geoffrey Murry (mail):
I was insulted by the nomination, but I must say that I was totally looking forward to the hearings.
10.27.2005 10:37am
Arthur (mail):
Now I guess we'll never find out what the Volokh conspirators and commenters really think about the nomination . . .
10.27.2005 10:44am
anonymous coward:
Didn't seem like there was even a ripple in the online betting markets before trading was paused.
10.27.2005 10:45am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
huh: Did you forget that our opposition to Miers continued right through all of the assurances two weeks ago that she belonged to a conservative church and supported a pro-life amendment to the Constitution?

Selective memory, my friend... Leave the spin to People for the American Way.
10.27.2005 10:46am
smwywh (mail):
Does Krauthammer have a direct line to the decisionmakers at the White House, or does he have to go through the switchboard like everyone else? Maybe if I get a column I can tell the President whom to nominate to each position, when, and under what circumstances that nomination could be withdrawn. Sounds like a swell job.
10.27.2005 10:56am
Visitor Again:
Poor Harriet. Destined to go through the rest of her life as an "almost." Better never to have been nominated, for sure. But better poor Harriet than poor us. Wonder if she'll stay in the White House or has her career been entirely shot to pieces. Live by Bush, die by Bush.
10.27.2005 10:57am
Julian Morrison (mail):
Bush may be weakened but the Right is strengthened. They're now in a position to essentially veto the next nominee.
10.27.2005 10:57am
James Kabala (mail):
Alas, I suspect that tefta is serious, but it not, it was a perfect parody, down to the smallest detail (e.g., "Democrat Congress" instead of "Democratic Congress.") Only the word "pogrom" seems a little too much.
10.27.2005 11:04am
AnoninDC:
Edith Hollan Jones was in DC last night. Not saying anything, just saying.
10.27.2005 11:05am
Olive Juice:
I smoked a joint with Harriet Miers after the 88 republican conv. I was going to hold out on that one, but why bother now...
10.27.2005 11:06am
TLSOriginalist (mail):
Well, since we are causing heads to explode, the President should nominate Janice Rogers Brown. I am pretty sure Ted Kennedy's head would explode from trying to explain why she is unqualified.

In all seriousness, I do believe the withdrawal of this nomination has temporarily stopped society's slide toward mediocrity.
10.27.2005 11:10am
Houston Lawyer:
Her speech to the Executive Women of Dallas was the straw that broke the camel's back. Her words made it quite clear that she isn't a principled conservative. Apparently her primary skill is sucking up to whomever is in power.

From the gloom of the Astros loss last night we wake up in Houston to the clear dawn of good news on the Miers nomination and look forward to UT in the Rose Bowl. What a happy day.

Speculation on the next appointment is flippin sweet.
10.27.2005 11:17am
Rhadamanthus (mail):

She should apologize for putting the country through this.



I assume you accidently meant to leave off the 'S' and make it he should apologise? You can't blame Miersfor accepting the nomination. I'd like to see you turn down a lottery prize like this!! It is the POTUS fault for making a lame nomination.
10.27.2005 11:22am
guest post (mail) (www):
I heard it was the Olsen twins.
10.27.2005 11:51am
Jeremy Pierce (mail) (www):
I'm trying to understand why 'reluctant' should be in scare quotes. Bush obviously didn't want it to come to this. He nominated her. He wanted her on the court. Why think it's not reluctant? I assume the reason for the scare quotes is that he probably is relieved not to feel the pressure from the right on this issue anymore, but that doesn't mean he's glad he's not going to get his wish to see her on the court.
10.27.2005 12:10pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I'm very glad for the news, but I do feel a little sorry for her. In two years, I doubt anyone outside law/news junkies will remember her, but this has to damage her career. She went from being a politically connected, successful, accomplished corporate litigator, to an unqualified hack who can't write, in the span of a month.

If she were already a federal judge, she could return to that position, secure in life tenure. If she were an academic, she could turn back to academia. If she had been forced to withdraw by a nanny problem, she could have returned to her career and laughed it off. If she had been Borked, she could turn to the conservative book/lecture circuit for support. But what does someone in her position do now?
10.27.2005 12:37pm
Henry Woodbury (mail):
Stand by Her Man!
10.27.2005 12:48pm
Anon7:
My prediction is that Bush will reward her with a District or Circuit Court appointment.
10.27.2005 12:56pm
SP (mail):
I don't feel terribly sorry for Miers because she is the one who said yes. There's a hubris in that, and a price to doing what one does to remain connected. I just don't think it was a good nomination and it was obviously not - that's what worries me. What else has the White House done that it assumes was the right call, when it wasn't? What else has Andrew Card rammed through just to prove a point?
10.27.2005 1:02pm
uh clem (mail):
On the Ted Olson comment - I saw him walking away from the white house this morning.

Lot's of people are going to be walking away from the White House before too long. ba dum dum.

Thank you, thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
10.27.2005 1:12pm
Challenge:
"Though I've previously been quite frustrated at Democratic obstructionism and attempts to focus on the judicial philosophy of Bush nominees, I think the conversative movement has now made clear that ideology is a perfectly acceptable reason to oppose a nomination."

I really don't think this is the issue. If this were President Guilianni, I'd be comfortable with him appointing a moderate unlikely to overturn Roe, Grutter, etc. He wouldn't compaign on promises to appoint new Scalias and Thomases.

But this was Bush. Bush promised something else. This was about holding a man to his word.
10.27.2005 1:26pm
DK:
Miers has a bright future as an ambassador to safe, beach-oriented country. Sucking up to power is the only job requirement.

Besides, as a 60 year old former managing partner of a major law firm, does anyone thing she needs to work for a living?
10.27.2005 1:33pm
Aaron:
Nieporent:


If she were already a federal judge, she could return to that position, secure in life tenure. If she were an academic, she could turn back to academia. If she had been forced to withdraw by a nanny problem, she could have returned to her career and laughed it off. If she had been Borked, she could turn to the conservative book/lecture circuit for support. But what does someone in her position do now?

I understand that there will be a vacancy at Dep. WH Chief of Staff shortly...
10.27.2005 1:35pm
Hoosier:
He should nominate Joe Lieberman. He's more socially conservative than many Senate Republicans. He's on the side of free markets. And he'd sail through.

Plus I think he's Hispanic. (I'll have to check on that one, though.)
10.27.2005 1:48pm
bosson:
GOP implosion continues on schedule. Next, a nomination that will galvanize everyone left of the far right into Borkish opposition resulting in yet another humiliating loss and complete loss of credibility for everyone who fought so hard to turn the nomination process into a jihad. Bush isn't too sharp but Miers was as close to getting an overturn of Roe as you people are going to get - and he knew that. In the next few months you'll learn the meaning of "Reap what you sow".
10.27.2005 2:50pm
Hoosier:
Well . . . it looks like bosson forgot to take his Xanax today.
10.27.2005 3:28pm
Syd (mail):
David M. Nieporent

She's still White House Counsel. That should keep her really busy for the next three years.
10.27.2005 3:29pm
Veggie_Burger (mail):
"Miers has a bright future as an ambassador to safe, beach-oriented country. Sucking up to power is the only job requirement.

Besides, as a 60 year old former managing partner of a major law firm, does anyone thing she needs to work for a living?"

DK,

That was a very ugly and unnecessary comment. Well, you don't like sixty year olds, do you? Well, how do you feel about seventy year olds? Maybe you need to get a job washing dishes at McDonalds, and stop running your mouth.
10.27.2005 3:36pm
Frank Drackmann (mail):
Too bad this didnt happen to Souter in 90'
10.27.2005 4:51pm
Goobermunch (mail):
Veggie_Burger--

I think DK's point was that, as the former managing partner for a major law firm, Harriet Miers is probably not hurting financially. In other words, it's not like she needed the job to put food on the table.

At least, that's how I read it.

--G
10.27.2005 5:03pm
DonL:
"He should nominate Joe Lieberman. He's more socially conservative than many Senate Republicans. He's on the side of free markets. And he'd sail through."

I personally would fight against this actor. He is not a moderate. He exposed himself when he bacame VP candidate by morping in to a silly Al Gore 2 He wrings his hands publically (a big act) about thing like abortion then votes for partial birth He was for the Iraq war but he is a strong orthodox Jew-that's the only reason he appears moderate. Check his compliance numbers with the ACLU and other liberal voters. He pretends very well, but votes leftist!
10.27.2005 5:20pm
Nikki (www):
Oops. Wrong about Fitzgerald and the office space.
10.27.2005 5:27pm
alexandra (mail):
I personally think Harriet had to be forced into withdrawing her own nomination. I did'nt appreciate her comments on the confirmation process at all. I can assure you , she is not happy with conservatives and I can hardly wait until her book comes out. (atleast she will have an editor)

I think its hightime that conservatives announce that when we elect someone who says he's going to appoint a constitutionalist, we don't want a friend of the wife.

And what is wrong with "IDEOLOGY"???? everyone has an ideology. I would like to see "Roe" go back to the slaughterhouse like many other horrid Supreme Court decisions that had no grounding in the constitution. BUT, most conservatives simply want a strict constructionalist. A Justice who intreprets, not one who "evolves" the constitution . As a result of this, Roe will go and alot of other bad case law with it.
10.27.2005 5:43pm
Shelby (mail):
Re Harriet Miers' finances:

From what I've read she actually is not wealthy -- assets of less than $500,000, excluding houses. She owns a house in Texas and a very small (<1000 sq ft) condo in VA. Maybe she donates her money; she also has an ill mother about 90 years old, and may be providing care for her. In any event, she probably does not have enough money to retire in anything like comfort.
10.27.2005 5:58pm
A Guest Who Enjoys This Site:
From the above comments, can we assume that the bulk of VC members fall into what Democrats Biden and Reid are referring to as the "far-right" or "radical right" respectively? So, between Biden, Reid, and the White House, VC members who opposed Miers are far right, radical, elite, sexist ideologues who wouldn't give the poor woman a chance.

I guess I'm still a "guest" and not a "member" yet. Otherwise, that "far" label would really bother me. I think I would demand to know from Senator Biden just what he means by the word "far."
10.27.2005 6:14pm
18 USC 1030 (mail):
Even her resignation letter was poorly written. What a waste of time this has been...
10.27.2005 6:51pm
TL:
Conservatives should be the jubilant ones. Now there is a chance for a slam-dunk conservative, known-entity to get on. Enter McConnell, the Ediths, Luttig, Wilkinson, et. al. These are the folks that are not only going to make liberals cry, prior to confirmation, but will have an impact on the Court as well ex post.
10.27.2005 7:51pm