Posted on 10/10/2005 1:52:33 PM PDT by Crackingham
One positive byproduct of the conservative crackup over President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers should be the retirement of what was always a silly argument -- that asking Supreme Court nominees about whether their religious beliefs might affect their rulings amounts to an unconstitutional "religious test for office."
As more than one conservative has ruefully admitted, supporters of the Miers nomination in focusing on Ms. Miers' membership in a pro-life evangelical church are doing exactly what conservatives accused liberal Democrats of doing when questioning past Bush nominees -- making an issue of a nominee's faith.
SNIP
Pro-Miers Republicans who had accused Democrats of an impermissible inquiry into the religious beliefs of Judge Pryor and Chief Justice Roberts are now in the embarrassing position of supporting a nominee whose friends are flaunting her religion in order to reassure Mr. Bush's "pro-life" base.
Democrats, for their part, are unlikely to flog the issue if Ms. Miers' religious beliefs because she is thought to be less problematic from their perspective than some other potential replacements for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And even if some Democrats want to play the "faith" card, all they need do is ask Ms. Miers if she will subscribe to the same promise John Roberts made: that nothing in her religious beliefs would make it impossible for her to uphold a Supreme Court precedent. (Prediction: Ms. Miers will do so.)
The "religious test" argument was a stretch even before Republicans switched sides on the issue of whether a nominee's religion is relevant. But before bidding goodbye to the argument, it's worth noting that the argument would flunk the test of history and logic even if a senator chose to vote against a nominee because he was a Catholic (or an evangelical or a Scientologist).
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
ping
Religion When It Suits
[Matthew J. Franck 10/08 06:50 PM]
I don't often agree with E.J. Dionne, but yesterday he nailed it. Of course, so have some conservative commentators whom he quotes. Dionne's complaint? That the same people in the Bush administration and among its supporters who thought it was outrageous when anyone brought up the religion of John Roberts, in order to raise questions about his future decision-making as a justice, think it's just fine to sell Harriet Miers (to wary conservatives, anyway) by talking about what a fine and trustworthy future jurist her religion makes her. A little hypocrisy may be "the tribute that vice pays to virtue," as La Rochefoucauld said. But this much begins to smell bad.
I'll go Dionne one better. I think the administration has played it wrong both times. It was right not to try to "sell" Roberts on the basis of his putative conservative Catholicism. What John Roberts thinks about the ensoulment of the embryo, not to mention of the doctrine of transubstantiation, is not an argument for his confirmation by the Senate. But when Democratic senators started to hint darkly about what they feared might be Roberts's Catholic views, the administration and its GOP allies in the Senate would have done much better not to react in high dudgeon, but to smile serenely and say "why ever do you wish to ask such a thing? Go right ahead and we'll see what the judge has to say." Does anyone think that what would have followed would have benefited Roberts's opponents in any way?
And now, with its broad nudges and winks, its tributes to Harriet Miers's religious faith, as though that constituted satisfactory assurance to conservatives that she would be "our kind" of Supreme Court justice, the Bush administration has chosen a tactic that is both wrong on the merits and foolishly hypocritical. Should Miers's interlocutors in the Senate hearings try again what they were rebuffed for trying with Roberts, how can their questions be fended off now? Bush's people have already ruled such questions in, not out.
Yup, by flogging religion as the qualification, instead of constitutionalism, a large can of worms has been opened. Now Christians will be pilloried for her every bad decision. Way to go Bush.
I appreciate knowing she appears to be a Christian, but that doesn't tell me a thing about what kind of SCOTUS justice she'd be.
A qualified judge/lawyer who is a strict Constitutionalist should be the primary criteria, not the nominee's religious/church affiliations.
I could be wrong here but is it the administration that is touting her membership in a particualr religion or are conservative pundits (those that are pro in any case?) Just because it's being used does not mean Bush is the one saying it.
yes, but since that isn't available, they have to try to sell something else.
"Just because it's being used does not mean Bush is the one saying it."
His spinmeisters have been using it to shore up the religious right, cause if that goes she's left standing in front of the court wearing her underwear.
"I appreciate knowing she appears to be a Christian, but that doesn't tell me a thing about what kind of SCOTUS justice she'd be. "
Every church I've been a member of had a congregation with views that ranged from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal. I don't think you can make anything out of church affiliation/membership.
Democrats do want to exclude Supreme Court nominees because of their faith. The Judiciary Committee, plans to investigate and Subpoena Focus on the Family head Dr. James Dobson an evangelical minister. Could you see the Judiciary Committee investigate and Subpoena a catholic father or Bishop in the John Roberts hearing?
"Yup, by flogging religion as the qualification, instead of constitutionalism, a large can of worms has been opened. Now Christians will be pilloried for her every bad decision. Way to go Bush."
That's the way it looks to me also. Dick Durbin is smiling.
Also, the idea that the administraion can pump up the religious faith of a nominee and get from people, " Oh, well, he/she goes to such and such a church. That's good enough for me. " is at best cynical manipulation.
But, I guess its the best one can do when there's nothing else to talk about, such as: " Well, you say you'll be a strict constructionist, but where is the evidence that actually shows this is so. And by the way, 'trust me' doesn't cut it. "
"Dr. James Dobson"
I'm told Dobsonis not a minister but a child psychologist instead.
I'll be honest. I don't want a God-hating secularist as a judge. Hatred of God translates to hatred of man, the pinnacle of creation. This hatred translates into abortionism, euthanasia, sodomism, anything goes, might makes right.
Yes, you are right, my mistake, Dobson has a "Doctorate of Philosophy" in child development.
I always thought he was a fundamentalist minister myself until I saw that posted the other day. I've never paid any attention to him so didn't know what he did in reality.
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.