Washington, D.C. was stunned this morning by Harriet Miers' sudden withdrawal of her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Naturally this did not come as a surprise to the readers of this blog, since the scenario played out to the letter as predicted in Astonishingly Accurate Prediction #3 and the follow-up post.

In spite of the storm of conservative protest, it was beginning to look as though the nomination would survive at least till the hearings ... and that your humble correspondent might have to come before you, my compassionate readers, to own up to a rare failure of his uncanny instincts.

But as it turns out, my only error was in supposing that my prediction might possibly fail.

Yesterday, the text of a 1993 speech by Miss Miers was made public by the Washington Post.  This speech before a feminist audience struck a tone that no pro-lifer would be comfortable with ... and in fact it appeared to be rather clearly pro-choice.

The Post article (linked here) turned out to be the final, fatal tap on the tottering house of cards that was the Miers nomination.

It was enough to persuade many conservatives who were hitherto neutral or in favor of the nomination that Miss Miers could not be trusted on the Court.

Among those persuaded was Dr. James Dobson, an early and key supporter of Miss Miers.

By late last night it was apparent that the nomination was doomed and that there was nothing to be gained by pursuing it further.

Thus came to pass Miss Miers withdrawal this morning and the President's "reluctant" acceptance of her withdrawal ... precisely as predicted in Astonishingly Accurate Prediction #3.

I trust the reader will understand that gloating is not in my nature.  

I only report the facts of my fulfilled prediction in the spirit of accuracy and full disclosure.

My readers may be confident that, in the unlikely event of a prediction of mine failing, I would report such fully and in the same disinterested and professional tone.

Meanwhile, I shall soon post some thoughts on Miss Miers' replacement.

Posted by ElephantMan

I totally wrote off Janice Rogers Brown for the first two nominations (Roberts, Miers), but I'm starting to wonder if her name could be on the table this time, around. Why? Because the pundits, talk show hosts, and bloggers (including myself) have been saying the same thing over and over for months, "We need someone like Janice Rogers Brown on the court!"

Now that Bush knows he needs to appoint someone that will unite his base, he will probably consider the one nominee that conservatives have been idolizing and drooling over for months.

So, do you think that Judge Brown's name may FINALLY be on the table?

Posted by msquid

I don't think Janice Rogers Brown is being seriously considered ... although I hope I'm wrong. She is deemed too controversial. If the President wanted to start World War III with the Democrats, I suspect he would pick Edith Jones rather than Brown. Jones would make conservatives just as happy without offering quite the red meat factor to the Democrats (although not far behind). In the end, I think the choice will be a bit less bold than either of those two.