[AFPhys]

Why were YOU not asking that Miers have an up-or-down vote in the Senate?

THAT is the ONLY Constitutional course of action for the Senate.

The "Conservatives" who defeated Miers have abandoned the principle claim that an "originalist" reading of the Constitution is desired above all else.

I would not have had any problem with a defeat of Miers by a vote on the floor of the Senate. I don't have any problem with withdrawing her nomination after it became clear that she didn't have sufficient support to pass muster in the full Senate. It is the unConstitutional process of denying her that vote by the Judiciary Committee conservatives maneuvering, and their demand that the executive branch release privileged documents, that I have a problem with.

I can't understand why people in the conservative movement abandoned the principle that an originalist interpretation of The Constitution was important, ironically during a battle "to install an originalist".

[ConsentofGoverned]

" can't understand why people in the conservative movement abandoned the principle that an originalist interpretation of The Constitution was important, ironically during a battle "to install an originalist"."
......................................................
Don't get stuck on supid pal, you missed all the black and white written evidence of her very liberal opinions. get real.

[Cboldt]

I can't understand why people in the conservative movement abandoned the principle that an originalist interpretation of The Constitution was important, ironically during a battle "to install an originalist".

That's obvious.

But you are trying to deny the President his prerogative to nominate and withdraw at will. Heck, even with a confirmed nominee, the President has no Constitutional obligation to appoint.

[Petronski]

I wanted her to go to the Senate, never dreamt she'd withdraw. But her hearings were going to be an embarrassing disaster.