I didn't like her nomination, but thought the president deserved to have his nominee have her day at the hearings. I think that the Concerned Women of America call to withdraw her nomination yesterday had a lot to do with this. They are a powerful group and held their fire for a long, long time to sift through the evidence. When they finally decided to not support her, they met with Dan Coats yesterday and explained their decision. Miers lost grassroot support. But I still believe she should have been given the opportunity to appear before the judicial committee.
[I didn't like her nomination, but thought the president deserved to have his nominee have her day at the hearings.]
Many people have said they believe the nominee should at least have the hearing for their fitness for the position. I'm curious why you feel that way. A nomination is not some personal holiday or constitutional right. It's just a job, and when someone clearly isn't qualified, then the process should stop immediately and begin again with a new nominee. Why do you think it's a good idea to have a general rule "if anyone is nominated, they should always have a hearing"? What beneficial standard does that set?