Posted on 10/03/2005 6:51:30 PM PDT by nwrep
In nominating a fundamentalist, literalist, evangelical Christian without a judicial trail, President Bush may have pulled off what could well be conservative response to Earl Warren.
In Harriet Miers, an avowed born-again Christian and faithful member of a Dallas conservative congregation for 25 years, social conservatives have the ultimate prize - namely, a Christian activist on the nation's highest court.
In reaching this conclusion, one need not look beyond the socio-political makeup of the contemporary protestant evangelical denominations. On issue after issue, their value system and belief structure is completely and irreconcilably at odds with the prevailing liberal dogma.
From the literalist interpretation of Biblical events like creation, to the young earth theory, to Intelligent Design, to absolutist positions on sodomy and homosexuality, to strongly patriotic and originalist beliefs, to the belief in "American exceptionalism", to the love of guns, and so on, you could, with very high certainty, establish the conservative credentials of someone who is a fundamentalist Christian today.
That is not to say that exceptions exist even within such congregations, and not everyone agrees with these views with equal fervor. But there can be no doubt that someone who has felt comfortable within such a denomination for 25 years would be very comfortable with this set of values.
With Harriet Miers, the President has delivered a double whammy to the left - a conservative evangelical, and an individual without a judicial paper trail.
I believe that if you are a social conservative who wants decades of liberal judicial influences peeled back, Harriet Miers is a great start, and President Bush deserves praise.
Yeah, and Jimmy Carter backed out of the SBC, too. And has been parading around the world and acting like a UN guru, too.
If this gal is both a conservative Christian and backed by George Bush, then I'm not going to doubt her.
Thank you. All I want is someone to uphold the law equally for all who appear to plead their case.
Nothing in the Constitution says that she needs to be able to read and write. So you're claiming a total illiterate is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice?
Have there been other justices who did not have experience
as a judge prior to being appointed to the Supreme Court?
"No. She has never been married."
Something else to worry about.
She's not married either. She MUST be a lesbian. I bet she's been a spy for Hillary all these years. Hell, maybe she's secretly dating Hillary.
Well, there was this slackard by the name of Rehnquist...
Law needs to be complicated, don't you know? Now you want words to actually mean what they mean? That is insane. -sarc
Some stupid contradictory arguments by some hand wringers...
Miers qualifications are lacking, she should not be confirmed
Roberts were impeccable, but that wasn't good enough.
Miers is born-again Christian, 25years in the same evangelical church - that's not good enough
Roberts is a Catholic - wasn't religious enough, look at Kerry and Kennedy
Miers is anti-abortion, not good enough
Roberts never clarified if he was anti-abortion, not good enough...
How many times have secular freepers justified all kinds of federal actions?
We can play this game all day.
I have faith in the President. I just can't believe he sold out. Deep in my soul, I believe Harriet is another Clarence Thomas.
Bringing in the sheeves, bringing in the sheeves, he shall come rejoicing bringing in the sheeves.
Not good enough! -sarc
I know.
That's why it's meaningless how where they go to church or how 'christian' they say they are.
What matters on the supreme court is not what church you go to or how often, it's what you believe the constitution means.
Period.
At this rate, Bush will never get re-elected!
I wonder what the reaction here would be if Ms. Miers was an admitted Atheist but also had an impeccable Constructionist record on judical rulings.
Peanut boy is about as Christian as Bill Clinton.
Who made you the judge of who is or isn't a born again Christian?
"She MUST be a lesbian."
No, not "must," but the question should be asked.
The last thing we need is a person who suffers from same-sex attraction disorder on the Supreme Court.
All good questions. Unfortunately, in this day and age, we won't get them answered in a satisfactory manner.
So we have to look at other things. Like what those who know her says she believes. Her pastor says she will take an originalist approach. Others have said she takes a rigorous approach to the law. Both speak better of her temperment than any Ivy League pedigree, which IMO teaches arrogance.
In other words just because she says so, doesn't make it real....so you don't know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.