Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination

[kit'n]

Bush: Decision confirms 'my deep respect and admiration'

Thursday, October 27, 2005; Posted: 9:24 a.m. EDT (13:24 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday accepted the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, according to a statement from the White House.

In her letter to the president, Miers said she was "concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and its staff and it is not in the best interest of the country."

"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."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he respected Miers' decision and looked forward to working with the president to quickly picking a new nominee.

We remain ready to fulfill our duty to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees," the Tennessee Republican said. "And the Supreme Court still awaits its next justice -- a highly qualified nominee who is committed to upholding the Constitution and who believes in the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."

Miers, 60, was nominated earlier this month by President Bush to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the high court. (Profile)

Bush's decision to nominate Miers, his White House counsel and a longtime adviser, had divided his supporters, many of whom wanted a nominee with a clear record of opposition to abortion.

On Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan had dismissed the suggestion that senators were reluctant to come out in support of Miers because they are unimpressed with her as a nominee.

"I think you're seeing a lot of members of the Senate saying, 'We want to hear what she has to say in the hearings,' before they make a judgment," he said.

"With Harriet Miers, there are many in the Senate that simply did not know her previously, although she is widely respected within the legal profession."

Senators had hoped to begin confirmation hearings the week of November 7.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ons/index.html

[bfp]

Thank the baby jesus. She would've been an activist.

Let's hope someone with credentials gets nominated this go around.

bush fumble # 7, whooops, lol

[matt]

it was bound to happen. she wasn't nearly as pat robertsony as the constituents would have wanted...

[bfp]

Originally Posted by matt

it was bound to happen. she wasn't nearly as pat robertsony as the constituents would have wanted...

You're a nut. Please keep quiet.

[matt]

=)

[The Real Rick Springfield]

i had predicted from the start that miers was a false nominee to let everyone freak out over her lack of credentials. then he could nominate his true choice and his critics breath a sigh of relief saying, "ok, now THIS person is qualified."

john

but wow that is good news

lol, j_v

so you think he was joking?

he'll be like 'gotcha, hee hee'

[PETA]

Originally Posted by john_vella

i had predicted from the start that miers was a false nominee to let everyone freak out over her lack of credentials. then he could nominate his true choice and his critics breath a sigh of relief saying, "ok, now THIS person is qualified."

john

I've been thinking about that since you said it.

Here's ultimately why I think you're wrong... but who knows... anyway

The withdrawal of Miers and nomination of Luttig, Brown or Owen will be those extraordinary circumstances sufficient to filabuster the Senate and there will be insufficient support to change the procedural rules thus blocking those nominees.

Perhaps he nominates one of those three and the Dems try to filabuster and the GOP overrides them. Its their nominee and they should fight for him/her and refuse to permit a minority to prevent their Justice from taking his/her seat.

This may end up accomplishing the fight many Conservatives has been itching for.

[Dionysos]

Funny how this happens the day the indictments are supposed to come down.

[The Real Rick Springfield]

Originally Posted by xian

I've been thinking about that since you said it.

Here's ultimately why I think you're wrong... but who knows... anyway

The withdrawal of Miers and nomination of Luttig, Brown or Owen will be those extraordinary circumstances sufficient to filabuster the Senate and there will be insufficient support to change the procedural rules thus blocking those nominees.

Perhaps he nominates one of those three and the Dems try to filabuster and the GOP overrides them. Its their nominee and they should fight for him/her and refuse to permit a minority to prevent their Justice from taking his/her seat.

This may end up accomplishing the fight many Conservatives has been itching for.

you're far more in tune with the legal world than i'll ever be, so i can't speak to the validity of this or any other nominee based on their qualifications.

i based my suspicion on gut instinct more than anything else. it just seemed strange that he would nominate someone that would so rankle his base. i could see someone a little off the beaten path, but this one just really blew up in his face. it made me suspect that there was some intention to that. if there wasn't, then it means he just screwed up.

and i would never want to assume that bush doesn't know what he's doing.

john

[PETA]

Originally Posted by john_vella

you're far more in tune with the legal world than i'll ever be, so i can't speak to the validity of this or any other nominee based on their qualifications.

i based my suspicion on gut instinct more than anything else. it just seemed strange that he would nominate someone that would so rankle his base. i could see someone a little off the beaten path, but this one just really blew up in his face. it made me suspect that there was some intention to that. if there wasn't, then it means he just screwed up.

and i would never want to assume that bush doesn't know what he's doing.

john

Don't get me wrong - I found your theory very interesting - you had me thinking about it quite a bit over the last week or two.

[The Real Rick Springfield]

Originally Posted by xian

Don't get me wrong - I found your theory very interesting - you had me thinking about it quite a bit over the last week or two.

it's one of those catch 22s.

Planned - wrong for the reasons you sited
Fumbled - means you have to assume bush is an idiot

those who dislike him can say what they want about him, but bottom line is that he's the president. you can't be THAT dumb/miscalculating and hold the office.

i've heard that lately he's ignoring the advice of those around him. maybe this is one of those cases. i just can't imagine that the people that he is surrounded by (chaney, rove, rice, et. al.) would hear "harriet miers" and say, "yeah, good one, dubya." ya know?

john

[molecule]

well I never really cared for her, but Im not gona jump up and down with glee here. If she's not good enough for her own party, then what kind of person do you think he'll get next, someone more conservative and evangelical? sometimes its better the devil you know than the devil you don't. but we'll see.