Bush Takes Mulligan on Meirs

Harriet Meirs withdrew her nomination this morning. Over the last 1 1/2 weeks this was looking more and more like the direction that the nomination process was going to take. In Meirs words she was, "concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interests of the country." She is correct in thinking so and correct in withdrawing her nomination. Meirs did nothing to demonstrate the constitutional understanding, experience and concrete judicial philosophy that should be required of a SCOTUS justice.

There has been much hand-wringing over the whole process. True, it has been a black eye to President Bush. However, in the long run, if the President selects one of those judges on the short list of experienced constructionist leaning candidates (Janice Rogers Brown, Luttig, McConnell, Owens, Garza etc.), this fumble could end up being better for conservatives than had the President made such a choice on the first pass. To not do so and select, say Gonzales, would be doubly devastating at this point.

Why do I say choosing someone off the "short list" now may be even better than had it been done in the first place?

1. First, the base will feel even more empowered. They will feel they have been heard and that there are voices speaking for and working for them. I work with activists in the field on nearly a daily basis and believe this will be a huge boost for them.
2. This sent a little warning to those in the gang of 14 and others that lack courage -- a warning that conservatives do not want to back down from their principles on judicial philosophy.
3. The debate over Miers showed Americans that conservatives do not move in lock step, blindly supporting a leader's decision, right or wrong. We are more than just "Bushies".
4. The debate, coupled with the Roberts nomination process, also showed that many convervatives do not just care about how a judge may rule. That we also care about the why. We demand that a judge have experience and a solid understanding of the constitution as well as a clear judicial philosophy.

UPDATE: First, thanks Doug for linking me from your site. Great collection of opinions. Second, the left is predictably taking the position that Meirs' withdrawl is a result of pressure from the "extremists" on the right. Interesting take considering that James Dobson endorsed the Meirs nomination, but George Will did not. Never thought I'd see the day when the left considered Dobson a moderate voice. There is a small amount of truth in the claim, but in the end this wasn't about a litmus test for rulings. It was about a litmus test for proven excellence.