By now, you've probably heard that Harriet Miers asked the President to withdraw her nomination as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and he "reluctantly" accepted. The text of her letter is available by clicking the title of this post. Note that because she has been nominated, it's actually the PRESIDENT's decision to withdraw the nomination.
This is a good result.
I blasted this choice on the day Bush announced her nomination. I further explained my reasoning two days after the announcement, and for once I was right on every criticism (blind hog finding an acorn factor at work). Before her nomination, I had predicted there would be no way the President would choose her because her negatives were far too high but the President proved me wrong.
Ultimately, this came down to two factors: quality and ideology. There have been far too many intellectual lightweights on the Supreme Court (Minton, Stevens, Whittaker, McReynolds, Blackmun), and far too many cronies (Fortas, Minton, Vinson). The conservatives in this country have worked hard to get a Republican President and Republican Senate (even The Monk contributed to certain campaigns in '02!) for precisely the reason Pres. Bush rejected out of hand: getting a nominee with a known conservative outlook on the bench.
Now the President goes back to the drawing board and has three choices: (1) accept the message and appoint the best CONSERVATIVE among the deep ranks of solid conservative jurists; (2) accept the message somewhat and limit his choices to women; (3) reject the message and nominate whatever squish he thinks will squeak through the Senate.
Obviously #1 is the best option: get a strong, conservative, qualified nominee and make the Senate do its job. Considering the weak effort Bush previously put forth, I have no hopes that he'll get it right this time.