WASHINGTON – The White House squared off yesterday with critics of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, dismissing suggestions from a number of prominent conservatives that it withdraw the White House counsel’s name from consideration even as documents surfaced that appeared to strengthen the conservative case against her.

A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Ms. Miers hopes to finish a questionnaire that was submitted to her Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that she is eager to visit with more senators when Congress returns to session next week. He shrugged off questions about her experience, calling her a woman of “great legal ability” who is “well-versed in constitutional law.”

Mr. McClellan also dismissed fresh questions about Ms. Miers’s commitment to conservative principles. Many conservatives were troubled by testimony that surfaced yesterday in which Ms. Miers told a Texas grand jury in 1989 that she would not be a member of the conservative Federalist Society because she thought the organization was “politically charged.” She then acknowledged membership in a liberal Democratic group.

“I have tried to avoid memberships in organizations that were politically charged with one viewpoint or another,” Ms. Miers said in her testimony, a transcript of which was obtained by The New York Sun. “For example, I wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society any more than – I just feel like it’s better to not be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you. I did join the Progressive Voters League here in Dallas as part of the campaign.”

The Federalist Society, a 35,000-member lawyers society founded in 1982 to combat what its founders viewed as the leftward direction of the courts, has been a training ground for some of the most prominent conservative attorneys in America. Many of its members have waited decades for a Republican president and a Republican Senate to nominate and confirm conservatives to the Supreme Court.

Ms. Miers’s testimony added to the simmering outrage among a vast number of politically active conservatives about President Bush’s nomination of someone without a clear conservative record to the court. The response among Federalist Society members was particularly intense.

“It’s a bad nightmare turned ugly to learn that the White House really never understood what the principled conservative position on the rule of law was,” one prominent member, who works at a public policy think tank, said on condition of anonymity. “This White House has set us back further than any liberal administration could have. Those of us who still believe in the rule of law no longer defend or support this administration.”

Asked about the grand jury testimony, Mr. McClellan cited a speech Ms. Miers gave earlier this year in which she praised the Federalist Society. He said she and Mr. Bush view the society as an ally.

“I know she’s proud that a number of her attorneys on her own staff are members of the Federalist Society,” Mr. McClellan said. “And she, like the rest of the White House, knows that the Federalist Society has been a great ally on many important issues, particularly when it comes to the federal judiciary.”

Conservative sentiment against Ms. Miers grew more focused yesterday, as a former speechwriter for two Republican presidents, Peggy Noonan, called on Mr. Bush to withdraw the nomination or for Ms. Miers to withdraw herself.

“The Miers pick was a mistake,” Ms. Noonan wrote in a column published on a companion Web site of the Wall Street Journal, OpinionJournal.com. “The best way to change the story is to change the story.”

Another prominent author and New York Times columnist, David Brooks, added to the conservative attack on Ms. Miers by pointing to her past writings in questioning the quality of her thinking.

A prominent member of the Federalist Society and the senior counsel to the Center for Equal Opportunity, Roger Clegg, said conservatives are disappointed about the Miers nomination because they view it as a missed opportunity. In addition to concerns about her qualifications, Mr. Clegg questioned the wisdom of choosing someone of Ms. Miers’s vintage. She is 60 years old.

“The president could have done much better,” Mr. Clegg said. “And this is not a situation where he could have said, ‘I couldn’t nominate the best person because I didn’t have the votes.’ He does have the votes – to nominate and confirm someone who is younger, better qualified, and more of a known quantity than Harriet Miers.”

Another prominent member of the Federalist Society who works at a public-policy think tank, but who asked not to be identified by name, said Mr. Bush could heal the widening divide between conservatives and the White House by withdrawing the nominee. He said Mr. Bush would likely decline such an offer – a point that was underscored by Mr. McClellan’s forward-looking comments to reporters yesterday.

“The president says he wants judges like Scalia and Thomas,” the Federalist Society member said, referring to the Supreme Court’s most conservative justices. “Well, those guys are heroes of the Federalist Society, and he’s picked someone who may be hostile to the Federalist Society. I think there is some chance she’ll withdraw. But there’s little chance Bush will withdraw her. … The tragedy of that is that he could make it right with everybody overnight.”

As conservative anger increased, some on Capitol Hill were predicting a revolt among Republicans in the Senate against Ms. Miers. Two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Brownback, of Kansas, and Senator Coburn, of Oklahoma, have been increasingly tepid toward the nominee. One source predicted that other Republicans could end up voting against the nominee as a response to constituent concerns.