[goldstategop]

Harriet Miers' religion which Bushbots tout to argue her confirmation to the U.S Supreme Court, when you get down to brass tacks, is irrelevant. As Rush says, folks need to get a grip: the libs won't care and what they will demand is any nominee set aside their religious beliefs, if you will, to decide a case. So her background is pretty much zilch as far as the debate over her qualifications are concerned. We don't know what her judicial philosophy is. That matters a great deal more in the long run than what church she attends. The Bushbots are being completely dishonest in saying she's not a stealth candidate.

[I]n terms of somebody else who has obvious conservative credentials, ideological credentials, judicial credentials that have been written and published and so forth, that's what I mean by, "She's stealth," and also what I mean by stealth is that she's an invisible target, and I'm talking for the Democrats.

She is one to the Democrats and to us as well. In the end, the abortion issue will matter to the Left and if they have so much as a hint she's pro-life, they will filibuster her - no ifs buts or ends about it. It would have been better to go into this fight honestly and win on the basis of ideas here. That is what the President should have done in sending forward a well-qualified conservative who has the staunch support of the base from Day One.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[flashbunny]

Rush limbaugh needs to go back to DU! He's no conservative!

(now let's wait for the personal attacks on Rush to commence...many of them coming from self-proclaimed Christians)

[Brilliant]

We don't know what her judicial philosophy is.

You don't know what Roberts' judicial philosophy is either. In fact, Roberts testified that he doesn't have one. Let's face it... If you knew what the nominee's judicial philosophy was, then they would not get confirmed. We're dependent on Bush making that call. If you did not trust him to do so, then you should have voted for someone else.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Her religion is being pimped by Bush supporters to placate the base. She's a stealth candidate alright.

[msnimje]

That is too bad because that is what the White House is telling us is the reason we should accept her nomination.

[Graybeard58]

What the Pres should have done and what he did do may be two different things to people but the fact is that he has made a decision and we now have the option to hope for her approval in the Senate or hope for her defeat. I prefer the former.

[advance_copy]

you didn't know any of this until it was told you and you don't know it yourself.

Well, I do know that she donated to very solid pro-life candidates in the last ten years. Either that, or someone is lying to the FEC. She's also donated to a pro-life group. One thing I know, you simply don't do that if you are pro-choice.

[Paleo Conservative]

Article VI.

..........

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[justshutupandtakeit]

They know damn well she is pro-Life but the point is what are they going to do about it. How will they be able to attack Dear Aunt Harriet without looking like the biggest bullies on the block?

This funniest part is the attempt to convince us that she is something other than a Conservative by the Perpetually Pissed Off.

[va4me]

Wasn't John Kennedy supposed to be a tool of the Pope because he was Catholic?

I would expect that anyone qualified for the Supreme Court would be able to separate out their religious beliefs from their job as a Justice. Miers, or anyone for that matter, ought to be ruling based on the law, not based on their own personal beliefs.

[va4me]

They ought to be decided -- and Roe was one of them, ought to be decided -- in the legislatures of the states or at the Congress by the elected representatives of the people.

Bravo Rush!!!

[Phocion]

It is rather transparent and pathetic. The base is upset at the choice, so the White House responds by going, "No, it's okay, she's a Christian!" Like that makes it all better.

I guess that's enough for some people (like James Dobson), but personally I'm more interested in her views of constitutional law than the frequency of her church attendance.

Even if she [i]is[/i] a secret Clarence Thomas (which I doubt), I still can't get past the fact she's a White House crony. Bush appointed her out of either his personal loyalty to her, or her expected loyalty to him (the expectation that she will grant the executive branch more power whenever it desires it). Neither is appropriate for an appointment to the Supreme Court.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yes! Thanks to Rush for stating the obvious. Her faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies her. What's wrong with people?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

The question really should never be what a nominee believes. That is irrelevant with reference to the law. The question should be whether they understand the law and the Constitution intelligently enough to know that SCOTUS has been inventing laws and reading quack liberal social science back into the Constitution (particularly in crackpot rulings like Roe vs. Wade). It is an intellectual matter of how people understand the Constitution. That the U.S. Constitution does not grant a universal "right" to take the life of unborn humans indiscriminately throughout the nine months of development including infanticidal murder as in "partial-birth" abortion is a matter of direct knowledge not beliefs. Quack wacko liberal secular humanists made up the "right to abortion" in their deranged fantasies during the sordid 1970s.

[Dolphy]

That is what the President should have done in sending forward a well-qualified conservative who has the staunch support of the base from Day One.

Who is this base and how do they know who is well qualified? Do they read through countless pages of opinions to determine the best qualified candidate? Do they have a list of acceptable law schools? Do they require that the nominee to have spent 90 minutes a day meditating on the complexities of constitutional law? Do they require a certain number of published works to bedazzle them with their legal agility and acumen? Or are they just mere commoners who are tired of decisions that provide and take away rights based on an ever evolving view of the constitution?

[McGavin999]

Rush is right, it matters what the constitution says. He's forgetting one thing though, the constitution says the President of the United States gets to pick the nominees for the Supreme Court. It also says the congress gets to advise and consent.

We had our say in November when we chose our president and our congress critters. Our part is done. We can gripe, we can moan, but we already did what we were supposed to do in a constitutional republic.

There are things Bush has done that I don't like, there are other things he has done that I support with my whole heart. One of the things I have had no quarrel with is his judicial nominees. Let's just see how this plays out.

[Meldrim]

Supposedly Brennan was a Roman Catholic; the court had no greater champion of homosexuality and abortion.