Shanktified!

Whatever the reason; let’s hope this has taught the administration that we need someone with a proven track record, who is a true constitutionalist “in the mold of Scalia and Thomas”, not someone who lacked “courage and conviction on any of the great issues from 1965 to 2005”

WASHINGTON (AP) - Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

Full Story Here“.

Here are a couple links on Janis Rogers Brown (who the President should have nominated).

NOW. Janice Rogers Brown’s Legal Opinions | PBS

People For the American Way - Janice Rogers Brown: In Her Own Words
This is a ulta-liberal site and you can see, they hate her. She’s got to be good to get them this ticked.

Even FRC, who was quick (if not the first) to jump out in support of Judge Roberts is really begining to wonder what’s going on here.

Miers’ 1993 Speech Prompts More Questions

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers spoke to the Executive Women of Dallas in 1993 and offered a troubling assessment of the abortion issue. In a story reported in today’s Washington Post (FRC has obtained the text of the speech, which was included in the papers she delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee) Miss Miers said: “The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual [woman's right] to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion.” She urged her listeners to remember that “we gave up…legislating religion or morality.” She added: “When science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act.”

This is very disturbing. Miss Miers’ words are a close paraphrase of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Her use of terms like criminalize abortion to characterize the pro-life position and guarantee freedom to describe the pro-choice position should have sounded alarms in the White House during the vetting process. When we defend the right to life, we hearken back to the Declaration of Independence, not to some strictly sectarian view. Science has long ago answered the question of when human life begins. The constitutional and legal question is whether we are going to defend innocent human life from lethal assault. This speech raises very troubling questions about Miss Miers’ views of constitutional matters.

Additional Resources
In Speeches From 1990s, Clues About Miers Views

I bet it’s not the last straw. I’m sure we’ll find out even more that upsets us in the days and weeks to come.

“In recent weeks, the only evidence that has been forthcoming concerning Miers judicial philosophy — if any — especially concerning life issues has caused us to be more concerned than ever that Miers is not the right person for this job,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

“Evidence published today in the Washington Post shows that Miers cannot be trusted,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “In speeches given to a Dallas women’s group, she praised rabid pro-aborts such as Gloria Steinem, Hillary Clinton, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson and made disturbing remarks in favor of ’self-determination’ — a liberal code word for abortion on demand. This indicates that the Miers nomination is an utter betrayal of President Bush’s campaign promise to conservatives to appoint justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.”

Full Story here.

Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, is calling for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’ name to be withdrawn. Full Story

I’m not shocked at this. After all, according to Laura Bush, part of the reason she was picked was because she is a woman.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.
Read more at Reuters.com

Buchanan has so many good points in his latest column, “Why did Bush do it?“, that I can’t post them all. Just read it.

This might be one of the best conservative pieces on why Meirs is the wrong pick.

From Federalist No. 76:

“To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.”

Randy Barnett writes:

As the quote from Hamilton suggests, the core purpose of Senate confirmation of presidential nominees is to screen out the appointment of “cronies,” which Merriam-Webster defines as “a close friend especially of long standing.” Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent–especially during the remaining term of her former boss.

Read the whole article here: OpinionJournal.com

Picking a justice isn’t about rewarding individuals or satisfying gender, race or diversity concerns. It’s about protecting our sacred liberties. Since the best way to do that is to find the brightest constitutional scholars with the requisite character and sound judgment, then that is precisely what the president should do. That’s not elitism; it’s essential constitutional stewardship.
~ David Limbaugh

Not the endorsement the Bush administration was looking for, I would guess.

Dallas gay leaders OK Miers pick
Only known record of her stances on gay rights
surfaces in lesbian’s garage