President Bush’s embattled nominee for the Supreme Court announced on Thursday she was withdrawing her name from consideration.

Reuters has Miers withdraws nomination.

President George W. Bush’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, White House counsel Harriet Miers, abruptly withdrew from consideration on Thursday after mounting criticism from the right and the left about her credentials for the lifetime job.

Bush said in a statement he reluctantly accepted the withdrawal of his long-time ally and would move in a timely manner to fill the vacancy left open by the retirement of Supreme Court Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor.

Harriet Miers’ letter of withdrawl is here.

Flap applauds Harriet Miers and wishes her well and continued service of the United States.

She did the RIGHT thing!

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, George Bush, Harriet Miers

Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers meets with Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisc., at his office in the Hart Senate Office Building on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2005 in Washington.

The Washington Post has Clues about Miers’ views in 1990s speeches: report.

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, in speeches a decade ago, said “self-determination” should guide decisions about abortion and also defended social activism, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

The speeches, which she provided to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, offer some of the clearest insights yet into Miers’ thinking on contentious social issues that could come before the Supreme Court, the newspaper said.

Miers talked about abortion, the separation of church and state, and how the issues play out in the legal system in a 1993 speech to a Dallas women’s group, the newspaper said.

“The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination,” Miers said in an excerpt reported by the Post. “And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes sense.”

With Republican Senators already having reservations the Fat Lady has sung with this revelation of self-determination .

Doesn’t that spell PRO-CHOICE?

In speeches delivered when she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers also defended judges who order lawmakers to address social concerns, the newspaper said.

Miers also showed sympathy for feminist causes, referring to the “glass ceiling” faced by professional women and urged her audience to support female candidates, according to the report.

So, let’s see……

1. Mier’s is pro-life but makes pro-choice speeches.

4. She won’t legislate from the bench but gives speeches supporting judicial activism.

Now, you know why Flap opposes Miers and why the President should accept Harriet Miers’ withdrawl.

Harriet Miers should ask the President withdraw her nomination and she should resume her duties as White House Counsel.

Patterico is STILL on the Ledge.

The President should then nominate former Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.

or any of these other fine federal appeals court judges:

Janice Rogers Brown

Edith Clement

Edith Hollan Jones

Charles Krauthammer has a reasonable face-saving approach here.

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, George Bush, Sandra Day O’Connor, Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Clement, Edith Hollan Jones, Priscilla Owen, Harriet Miers

UPDATED:

The New York Times has Senators in G.O.P. Voice New Doubt on Court Choice

The drumbeat of doubt from Republican senators over the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers grew louder Tuesday as several lawmakers, including a pivotal conservative on the Judiciary Committee, joined those expressing concerns about her selection.

Emerging from a weekly luncheon of Republican senators in which they discussed the nomination, several lawmakers suggested that as Ms. Miers continued her visits on Capitol Hill, she was not winning over Republican lawmakers.

“I am uneasy about where we are,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican on the Judiciary Committee who had so far expressed only support for the president’s choice. “Some conservative people are concerned. That is pretty obvious.”

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, called Republican sentiment toward Ms. Miers’s nomination “a question mark.”

“There is an awful lot of Republican senators who are saying we are going to wait and see,” he said.

Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican in the political middle of his party, said he needed “to get a better feel for her intellectual capacity and judicial philosophy, core competence issues.”

“I certainly go into this with concerns,” Mr. Coleman said.

But, these are NOT the only Senators with concerns…….

Coming less than two weeks before confirmation hearings, the public questioning by Republican senators may be an ominous sign. Of the 10 Republicans on the 18-member Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sessions joins two others who have publicly raised concerns: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has questioned her legal views on abortion rights, and the committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, has said Ms. Miers could benefit from a “crash course in constitutional law.”

Several Republican aides, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said two other Republican committee members, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, had privately raised questions about her judicial philosophy. Both declined to comment on their views of her.

And leaving the lunch meeting on Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a Judiciary Committee member, acknowledged that senators who had met with Ms. Miers were telling colleagues that they had been unimpressed.

“She needs to step it up a notch,” Mr. Graham said.

Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, said there was not much enthusiasm for the nomination among Senate Republicans, although most had “held their fire.”

The Fat Lady has sung.

Harriet Miers will NOT be confirmed.

With the turmoil in the White House due to the possible indictments of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, the White House counsel should return to her office and allow the President another nomination.

—————————–

Flap is bumping this to the top awaiting the New York Times Wednesday edition which will only corroborate what Flap has said:

I oppose the Miers nomination.

The Truth Laid Bear has Call to Bloggers: Take Your Stand on Miers

Flap opposes the Miers nomination.

Armed Liberal, Flap’s partner in the Galloway protest is opposed too.

Captain Ed at Captain’s Quarters has Bad News Turns Into Flood On Miers.

In response, let me say that I have supported Miers’ confirmation up to now, almost exclusively on two bases: presidential prerogative and an assumption of basic competence, both on her part and the White House. The questionnaire has my confidence in the second basis badly shaken. The slapdash manner of its preparation tells me someone isn’t taking this seriously, and since Miers has her name on it, that’s her responsibility. The way she managed to antagonize Specter adds to that impression. She’s striking me as an imprecise and sloppy nominee for a position that requires absolute clarity and precision.

Given that, my reliance on presidential prerogative remains … but it doesn’t outweigh my objection to getting a substandard jurist on the Supreme Court. Waiting until the hearings for her to get exposed as that will prove a political disaster for the President and the GOP. For those reasons, I’d strongly suggest that the White House look for a way out of this, and fast.

Harriet Miers was not Flap’s first choice for nomination to the Unites States Supreme Court. Flap thought President Bush would chose another Texas jurist and former Texas Supreme Court Justice, Priscilla Owen. The President should rethink his choice.

Harriet Miers’ confirmation process is not going well:

1. Numerous petitions against her nomination

2. Numerous mis-steps in the nomination process with blunders with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and then the poorly written/constructed Senate Judiciary Committee Questionnaire

3. Numerous editorials asking for a withdrawl of the nomination here and here.

Flap understands that this choice is the President’s perogative.

However, Flap no longer believes Harriet Miers can be confirmed.

The Democrats will not vote for her because of her pro-life evangelical proclivities. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal “outed” a stealth deal on Roe v. Wade.

Republican Senators will be conflicted to vote her out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She does not need a positive recommendation from the committee but Flap cannot imagine a majority of Senators voting for a nominee who cannot muster a majority committee vote.

So, why go through a brutal hearing process?

Harriet Miers should ask the President withdraw her nomination and she should resume her duties as White House Counsel.

The President should then nominate former Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.

or any of these other fine federal appeals court judges:

Janice Rogers Brown

Edith Clement

Edith Hollan Jones

Charles Krauthammer has a reasonable face-saving approach here.

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, George Bush, Sandra Day O’Connor, Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Clement, Edith Hollan Jones, Priscilla Owen, Harriet Miers

White House Counsel Harriet Miers arrives on Capitol Hill Monday, Oct. 25, 2005, for a private meeting with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to discuss her nomination to the Suprme Court.

Asked about Bush Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Clinton said she’s eager for the Senate confirmation process to be played out. She did say there is one question she thinks Miers should be asked.

“Please tell us one thing you disagree with the president on,” Clinton said to loud applause from the crowd.

Flap wonders what Slow Joe Biden wil ask?

White House Counsel Harriet Miers reacts while speaking with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N .Y., during a meeting to discuss her nomination to the Suprme Court Capitol Hill Monday, Oct. 17, 2005. Schumer is member of the Judiciary Committee, which will hold hearings and take the first vote on the nomination.

The ASSociated Press has Bush Confident Miers Will Be Confirmed.

The White House said Monday that President Bush is confident Harriet Miers will be confirmed to the Supreme Court, even though a Democrat on the Senate panel that will hold hearings on her nomination said she doesn’t have the votes.

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush is committed to sticking with Miers until the Senate vote.

“He’s confident that she will be confirmed because as senators come to know her like the president knows her, we’re confident that they will recognize she will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice,” McClellan said.

Flap handicaps that she does not have the votes and will not have the votes.

The President and Harriet Miers should rethink their positions.

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, George Bush, Harriet Miers

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers meets with Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) in Washington October 17, 2005. U.S. President George W. Bush continues to face harsh criticism of the nomination of his long time friend Miers to fill a seat on the Court.

Previously on Flap:

Harriet Miers Watch: N.Z. Bear Asks, And I Answer: I Oppose the Miers Nomination

Harriet Miers Watch: Supports Affirmative Action?

Harriet Miers Watch: Is it Time for Her to Withdraw?

Now, Senator Charles Schumer on Meet the Press weighs opines and agrees with Flap that Harriet Miers lacks the votes to be confirmed.

The ASSociated Press has Schumer: Miers Lacks Votes to Be Confirmed.

A Democrat on the Senate committee that will consider Harriet Miers’ nomination said Sunday that President Bush’s Supreme Court choice lacks the votes now to be confirmed, saying there are too many questions about her qualifications.

“If you held the vote today, she would not get a majority either in the Judiciary Committee or the floor,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. On the 18-member GOP-controlled committee, “there are one or two who said they’d support her as of now.”

But the committee’s chairman, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, rejected the notion that Miers’ nomination was in trouble. Specter said most senators are waiting for the hearings before making up their minds “There are no votes one way or another,” he said.

Perhaps.

Miers, a longtime Bush confidante who has never been a judge, was nominated to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The nomination has troubled some conservatives who say it was a risky choice because Miers was a blank slate on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

Democrats, too, have expressed concerns about whether the current White House counsel could sever her close ties to Bush and rule independently once she were on the bench.

“The hearings will be make or break for Harriet Miers in a way they haven’t been for any other nominee,” Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “She’ll have to do very well there. She has a tough road to hoe.”

However, it would be far better for the President and the Republican Party if she withdraws and withdraws NOW.

Harriet Miers has NO hope for confirmation and why go through a brutal confirmation hearing process which would be personally deflating. Harriet Miers has served the President and her country well and does not deserve such a defeat.

The Eagle Forum has some compelling reasons why Harriet Miers should withdraw and…….

Charles Krauthammer has a reasonable face-saving approach here.

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, George Bush, Harriet Miers

George Will STRIKES OUT with Defending the Indefensible.

Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.

Miers’s advocates, sensing the poverty of other possibilities, began by cynically calling her critics sexist snobs who disdain women with less than Ivy League degrees. Her advocates certainly know that her critics revere Margaret Thatcher almost as much as they revere the memory of the president who was educated at Eureka College.

Next, Miers’s advocates managed, remarkably, to organize injurious testimonials. Sensible people cringed when one of the former Texas Supreme Court justices summoned to the White House offered this reason for putting her on the nation’s highest tribunal: “I can vouch for her ability to analyze and to strategize.” Another said: “When we were on the lottery commission together, a lot of the problems that we had there were legal in nature. And she was just very, very insistent that we always get all the facts together.”

Miers’s advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself.

In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers’s conservative detractors that she will reach the “right” results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives’ highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution’s meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.

As Miers’s confirmation hearings draw near, her advocates will make an argument that is always false but that they, especially, must make, considering the unusual nature of their nominee. The argument is that it is somehow inappropriate for senators to ask a nominee — a nominee for a lifetime position making unappealable decisions of enormous social impact — searching questions about specific Supreme Court decisions and the principles of constitutional law that these decisions have propelled into America’s present and future.

To that argument, the obvious and sufficient refutation is: Why, then, have hearings? What, then, remains of the Senate’s constitutional role in consenting to nominees?

It is not merely permissible, it is imperative that senators give Miers ample opportunity to refute skeptics by demonstrating her analytic powers and jurisprudential inclinations by discussing recent cases concerning, for example, the scope of federal power under the commerce clause, the compatibility of the First Amendment with campaign regulations and privacy — including Roe v. Wade .

Can Miers’s confirmation be blocked? It is easy to get a senatorial majority to take a stand in defense of this or that concrete interest, but it is surpassingly difficult to get a majority anywhere to rise in defense of mere excellence.

Still, Miers must begin with 22 Democratic votes against her. Surely no Democrat can retain a shred of self-respect if, having voted against John Roberts, he or she then declares Miers fit for the court. All Democrats who so declare will forfeit a right and an issue — their right to criticize the administration’s cronyism.

And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.

As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch’s invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush’s reckless abuse of presidential discretion — or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such — can never be considered presidential material.

An intemperate snobbish piece. Flap reproduces it in its entirety and George Will’s email address so that you can let him know what you think.

georgewill@washpost.com

Although Flap no longers supports Harriet Miers’ confirmation, he does not subscribe to this tripe, nor does he personally attack the motives and civlity of others who support her.

The paragraph regarding “crude people” is just about enough.

George Will you are a MORON!

H/T: Metamorphosism for the graphic

Read other takes on this MORONIC piece:

Hugh Hewitt – President Will, Justice Powell and Chief Justice Wilkinson.

President Aristotle – Miss Miers the originalist and Mr Will

Jed Babbin – Will’s Dud Nuke

Flap again appeals for civility in the debate.

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court, George Bush, Harriet Miers, George Will, Hugh Hewitt

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers sits in the office of Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, October 20, 2005.

Reuters has Miers supported affirmative action: paper.

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers supported affirmative action goals in the early 1990s when she served as president of the State Bar of Texas, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

Miers wrote that “our legal community must reflect our population as a whole,” and under her leadership the lawyers’ association supported racial and gender set-asides and numerical targets for jobs, the newspaper reported.

The piece written in the Washington Post is titled, Miers Backed Race, Sex Set-Asides

She Made Diversity A Texas Bar Goal

The Supreme Court nominee’s words and actions from the early 1990s, when she held key leadership positions as president-elect and president of the state bar, provide the first window into her personal views on affirmative action, an area in which the Supreme Court is closely divided and where Miers could tip the court’s balance.

Her tenure at the bar association also could provide new fodder for conservatives opposed to her nomination, as President Bush seeks to quell a rebellion on the right over his selection of Miers.

To some conservatives, the types of policies pursued by the Texas bar association amount to reverse discrimination. One of the chief complaints on the right against Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was that he clashed with conservatives who wanted to take a harder line against affirmative action.

Texas Bar Question and Answer for Harriet Miers is here.

Texas Bar Journal 1992: Inclusion, Education and Monitoring.

Another nail in the coffin for Harriet Miers’ nomination. This will not help her with any Democrat Senators and further alienates Bush’s conservative base.

Flap handicaps her withdrawl tonight (Saturday).

The President has made a mistake and MUST correct it before this nomination becomes more of an embarassment.

Captain Ed asks Is Miers A Quota Queen, Or Just Misquoted?

Patterico is still on the Ledge.