Harriet Miers' judicious withdrawal

We commend Harriet Miers for withdrawing her nomination to the Supreme Court. Ideally, though, she should have realized she wasn't qualified for the highest court in the land long before she "flunked" a simple questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee and was requested to do it over.\nTwo days after President Bush nominated Miers, the Indiana Daily Student Editorial Board elucidated its doubts about her ("The best woman for the job?" Oct. 5). Nonetheless, we were judicious in passing any preliminary judgments. We were skeptical, but we gave Bush's best friend the benefit of the doubt. \n"We hope Miers is strongly questioned during her confirmation hearings, and until those have ended, we're reserving our final judgment on her. From here on out though, the burden of proof, so to speak, is on Miers to meet our expectations for what a Supreme Court justice should be," we wrote.\nObviously, Miers didn't make the cut, according to conservatives, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the media at large. In other words, her nomination was a big mistake. \nNonetheless, in the great spirit of American optimism, we thought to offer Miers some conciliatory remarks and the president a few beneficial suggestions when nominating the next judge.\nSure, it stinks to feel rejected. But Miers is not the only instance of failure among Supreme Court nominees. With last week's decision, she joined 34 others. The most recent Supreme Court nominee to withdraw his nomination was Douglas Ginsburg in 1987. (His fault: having used marijuana while teaching at Harvard Law School.) Sure Miers doesn't have a teaching position at Harvard or any judicial writings, but she's a born-again Christian with a clean public drug record. It's all relative in the land of Supreme Court failures. Some smoke up, others write fawning thank-you notes complete with cheesy phrases such as, "you are the best governor ever ... "\nWe want someone on the bench who is objectively well-qualified (preferably with a history of legal writings, not thank-you notes), someone with a legal past, not a loyal attachment. We need a great legal mind able to understand the distinction between a strict and loose interpretation of the Constitution. The judicial branch should not be a partisan tool for manipulating the notion of separation of powers. In selecting someone to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat, we hope the president will look for guidance in the person he is choosing to replace. O'Connor, who served as the first woman on the Supreme Court, made history not because of her gender but her astute decision making. Thus, it is not only irresponsible, but insufficient to substitute O'Connor with any female crony. \nWe hope Miers' withdrawal will spark a change in President Bush, leading him to search beyond his close group of friends for a justice who will truly continue O'Connor's legacy. If reason and logic aren't solid reasons for an objectively well-qualified nominee, then let us return to the Bush style of speaking: a favor in return for a favor -- O'Connor was the fifth crucial vote in ending the 2000 presidential recount with Bush v. Gore.