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.
Why would you believe her to be a lesbian if she is a born-again Christian active in her church for 25 years? This makes no sense at best and is a horrible slur against the woman at best...
ROFL!!!
Take a bow, that was a GOOD post! ;-D
Oh, puh-leeze. I guess we should assume that nuns are lesbians as well.
Since WHEN did it become so easy to not give a conservative woman the benefit of a doubt because she never married? From what I have seen, she is married to her job. Like a nun.
Renquist. Don't let that stop you from bashing Miers though. We here at Daily Kos, I mean FR just love eating our own.
A belief in young earth creationism and intelligent design does not establish conservative credentials.
Now, please provide context for "submitted".
Whatever, that's not a very smart response IMHO.
I claimed nothing of the sort but if a President did nominate an illiterate and the Senate confirmed it, well then I guess so.
Oh, lovely.
While being a "born-again Christian" shouldn't be a bar (no pun intended) to being on the SCOTUS, it certainly shouldn't be considered a qualification for the job.
Folks, keep you eye on the ball.
only the Lord knows her heart...
Thanks for posting. The last 12 hours have allowed me to witness the most bi-polar side of the GOP i've ever seen...and that doesn't even include the trolls ;o) Maybe it's just a manic Monday.
No kidding! I am getting tired of hearing all the drivel.
Neither. Like I said, I agree with a vast majority of your statement about Bush. Except the part that Miers is a slam dunk.
i think we'd have been better off as a country with a total illiterate then what we have had.
She'd be excoriated and declared unfit to serve on the court.
And her pastor has stated that she holds an originalist viewpoint.
So we'll see what else either buttresses or erodes that statement.
But I'll take a third-tier originalist over a top-notch activist any day of the week. A lot of folks think Clarence Thomas is a simpleton, too...
There are a great number of very ordinary people who understand more about the Constitution as it was written than almost any elite graduate of our Ivy League law schools do today. Free Republic is evidence enough of that.
Not sure. But if she held the same beliefs as the founding fathers on what the constitution means, she'd get my support.
Ultimately, you have to decide what you want: Someone who has the right 'religious credentials', or a person who will stand up for your right to practice your religion as the founders intended?
Put it this way: Kerry pretended to be a religious catholic, but the way he would have governed would have been a detriment to religious freedoms. It's about what they will do, not how religious they say they are or are not.
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.