Miers withdrawals
D | Thursday, October 27, 2005

---

So she withdrew her name from consideration. The reasons cited seem to suggest that she did not want to compromise executive privilege by forcing the White House to release documents detailing her personal counsel to the President. Let me again stress that I do believe she was under-qualified, but other than that I have no personal animosity to her and I don't know anything about her judicial or political views, so I can't comment on them.

With that said (i.e. that was my "no offense but..." qualifier) - this is crap. Removing your name from consideration because you don't want to release documents? You think releasing documents between you and the President "would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel." Really? What in God's name did you guys talk about? "Protection of the prerogatives of the Executive branch and continued pursuit of my nomination are in tension." It's not bad writing, but seriously? You have no published judicial records. Either tesify about your opinions or release some documents. Why is this an unreasonable request? Read her letter to the President here (PDF)

My un-educated guess is she resigned because they didn't think she had the votes to be confirmed, which would be a "body blow" to the Bush Presidency. But why would that mater? Bush's approval rating has no where to go but up; quite truly he can't lose much more in the realm of public opinion. If she was the right woman for the job, why not give it a go? So I think she didn't have the votes. Either that or these elusive documents were so bad/embarrassing/inappropriate, that the preferable choice was for Miers to get out of the race rather than letting these documents get out.

Where do we go from here? Who knows? The President already told us he picked the best person for the job, so by default, anyone he nominates now is a second choice. Better find some new language. Here's $10 that says the new nominee will NOT be a woman. Who wants this action?

And just for fun, feel free to re-read my "I'm not a judge, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night" post here (more important my be my comments, so don't forget those).

D | 10/27/2005 02:13:00 PM |   Post your comment

---

Comments:

I'll match your bet and raise you $50. Bush is trying to save face now, so he's going to pick someone as close to John Edwards as possible. Hell, if he had a twin, he'd be nominated yesterday.

What to do, you ask? Go get your abortions without your parents knowing, your gay marriages, and other controversial things taken care of now before this all goes to hell.
HM | October 27, 2005 5:11 PM | permalink
 

---

John Edwards? The Democratic VP candidate?

I think Bush will go exactly the opposite direction. His big problem with Miers didn't come from Democratics, it came from the waivering support of his own conservative base. From what I understand, they did not feel Miers was "conservative" enough. I think he will nominate the most right-wing, conservative, Republican, Christian, Circuit Court judge he can find.

I'm thinking if Rush Limbaugh says yes, Bush might nominate him!
D | October 27, 2005 6:58 PM | permalink
 

---

Crap, I mispelled Roberts.
HM | October 27, 2005 7:03 PM | permalink
 

---

No sweetie, she didn't step down to save W's approval rating. Haven't you heard? Miers withdrew to overshadow the looming indictments against Rove and Libby.

Give me a break. Like a withdrawal of a woman nobody liked is going to be the top story over indictments handed down over a CIA-leak from the President's and VP's trusted aides. So ridiculous.

Anyhow, yes sir the next nominee will be a man. And I'm thinking W is going to pick someone more of a Scalia or Thomas mold because to the U.S. and Senate anyone is better than Miers. I think he'll give a conservative justice a shot.
Ashley | October 27, 2005 7:09 PM | permalink
 

---

Gracias for reading my blog and finding it funny. Most of what I write is supposed to be my smart ass take of the world and people, but tone can get lost.

Alice
Betty | October 28, 2005 11:06 AM | permalink
 

---

I'm agreeing with everyone on this one. I think it's going to be a man. Someone like Gonzales, but not him, because finding a new AG will create a double problem.
Ruvym | October 28, 2005 11:57 AM | permalink
 

---

Post your comment