I'll admit that I was glad to see Miers withdraw her name. However, I think that the reaction of some is over the top. Jonathan Hawkins, one the of the bloggers I've read the longest, put a dancing Snoopy image at the top a post and, essentially, posted a "Yippee! She's gone! Good riddance!" type blog entry. I disagree with the tone. While I don't believe that Miers was a good choice for SCOTUS, I do however believe that she's a fine attorney, a decent person and a good friend of the president, the last item being obvious by her willingness to pull her name from the hat and limit the damage being done to Bush. Gloating over her withdrawal is petty and serves no purpose. Yes, conservatives should be glad that we're likely to get a strict constitutionalist with a paper trail and stronger credentials nominated and confirmed now, but I don't like it that some on the right are gleeful and giddy at what is likely a disappointment to Harriet Miers. She deserves better.

Update: Dale Franks takes Hugh Hewitt to task for his uncharacteristically whiny response to Miers' withdrawal. Excerpt:

Was it unfair to point out her dearth of experience, or lack of writing on Constitutional issues? Was it unfair to point out that a stellar host of law professors, judges, and long-time public officials with impeccable credentials were passed over in order to nominate her? Was it unfair to wonder, since no evidence of a fixed judicial philosophy could be found, if she was another Souter or Lewis Powell in the making?

Apparently Mr. Hewitt's position is that, since the president spoke, mutatis mutandis ex cathedra, in declaring her to be the candidate of choice, our responsibility was to remain silent little serfs, and if milord assures is that she is the person for the job, our proper role is to ignore any doubts about her qualifications and lack of clear judicial philosophy, and doff our caps and tug our forelocks.

Well, here's a little whack with the clue-bat: I have a perfect right to express my opinion on the president's nominees. I can call for the nominee's withdrawal. I can call on senators to vote the nomination down. Fortunately, I still live in a free country where can express my opinions, and if Mr. Hewitt doesn't like it, tough.
...
Well, anyway, at least that's over. I'm sure Mr. Hewitt will stop sulking over Ms. Miers the second the president announces a replacement nomination, just as I'm sure Mr. Hewitt will provide the president's nominee with unqualified support. No matter who it is.

Update: John Cole weighs in:

There was not going to be a defeat on the Senate floor. She was not going to get out of committee, and she was going to humiliate everyone in the process. And that is what Senators were relaying to the White House all week.

As to Hugh’s suggestion that this was somehow an ‘unconstitutional’ result, I would suggest Hugh doesn’t know what is in the Constitution if he thinks anything unconstitutional happened. The President nominated Miers. It became clear that she was unqualified and would not pass a vote. She withdrew her name from consideration. I will leave it to Hugh to demonstrate how this is a violation of either principle, precedence, Senate Rules, or the Constitution. Good luck with that, Hugh.

In short, Hewitt is simply lashing out at people who chose not to ‘trust’ the President to the degree that Hugh did. His charges have no merit, and his animosity is carelessly targeted. If he wants to be mad at anyone, it shouldn’t be the people who pointed out the flaws in this candidate. Perhaps after he cools down, Hugh will stop tilting at windmills and recognize that the person he should be mad at is Bush, who made this flawed nomination in the first place, putting his allies and poor Harriet Miers in an unfortunate position.

What he said.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 679 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Hi All, I am just a former physics' geek, so hopefully I can still relate. I find it funny (because I am usually ready for a fight) that I found the discord in the recent debate about Harriet Miers distasteful. I recall that I gravitated to trying to be a peacemaker in another forum in which I participated many moons ago. I made similar peacemaking posts this time. What bothered me was the similarity to the Left from some of the people on my side supposedly who immediately attacked the choice. Adamant denunciations with absolutely no evidence, and simply based on disappointment, did not impress me. I do not think that people like Beldar, Hedgehog, or Hewitt embarrassed themselves. Hugh's recent Friday show featured the top ten movies about being defeated! He has had a talk-like-a-pirate day. He admitted to piloting a snowmobile into a tree! This is not a pretentious man. I do not think that things got as ugly as is typical on the left side of the blogosphere, but it seemed to threaten to do so. That bothered me. I do not think that generally lines were crossed, but it seemed a bit too close for comfort for me. Mike P.S. I was as disappointed as most conservatives about the selection of Miers. I would have hoped that we could do better, but I can't reliably make such political calculations. I do not see how excessive hubris about defeating this nomination from those on the Right helps further the cause at all. I think that Hugh has been expressing what many conservatives noted. Too many of the early responses were merely reflections of their disappointment with the choice, but without any decent argument. That eventually came, but it is more like the lefties to proclaim something as fact before the facts are presented.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2005 09:22 AM (wPv9m)

Hide Comments | Add Comment