Hugh Hewitt was an intrepid supporter of Harriet Mier's nomination to the Supreme Court. Not because he necessarily is a Mier's fan, but because he saw loyalty to the Mier nomination as loyalty to President Bush. Hugh is therefore somewhat bitter about the withdrawal of the Mier's nomination. He believes it compromises the conservative insistence on up or down votes for conservative nominees. I just don't see the connection.

If there is any Conservative insistence on up or down votes, it is only in the context of opposition to judicial filibusters. There is no demand that all judicial nominees be appreciated or endorsed. Conservatives recognize that Presidents make poor judicial nominations from time to time, witness David Souter. Conservatives demand only that nominations be decided by the majority of the Senate, not a minority.

I have yet to hear that Harriet Mier's nomination was filibustered or otherwise blocked on procedural grounds. It seems the nomination was withdrawn when it became apparent that the conservatives felt they were being sold another Souter and would not vote to confirm. In short, rather than be humiliated by a negative vote, the administration decided to pull back. This was not a filibuster, just simple principled opposition.

President Bush apparently picked Harriet Mier in an effort to avoid a fight with the left. In this he succeeded. But he got into a fight with the right instead. This is a positive sign -- it shows that the conservatives have learned to fight back against the leftward push on court nominees and balance the scales. President Bush is now free to nominate whoever he wants instead of having to accommodate the liberals.

All in all, this is a positive development.