get a grip. She wasn't denied an up or down vote. She was withdrawn (officially withdrew herself) becuase the base of the president's party demanded someone better.
That is nowhere near the same as fillibustering a nominee in the senate. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
I'm already tired of hearing that argument. They have no clue! I love this analysis:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1512509/posts
Anyone who claims that the conservative (not originalist) Senators' maneuvering was not designed to deter and even deny a vote by the Senate on the floor is being intelectually dishonest, and you know it. Krauthammer's whole article specifically described how to conduct that operation so as to deny Miers such a vote, why it would work, and why doing that would be a great thing. Brownback and others had already embarked on such a vendetta, as Krauthammer described.
It worked.
Miers didn't get a vote because of the intentionally and duplicitously engineered "separation of powers" questions rather than the vote she ought to have had on the floor based on Senators' decisions about her qualifications for the post.
The "conservatives" won. The Originalists lost, and that little sparrow will come back to roost sometime in the future - I suspect in the near future - to the detriment of those who believe themselves "conservative".