Posted on 10/12/2005 9:40:01 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
It's not about her religion, your religion, or my religion (which I presume is Christian for all three -- I can vouch for myself). It's about the fact that President Bush stated that her religion played a part in his decision to select her as SCOTUS nominee. That's where the danger lies (as others have already said).
That's true of a number of the nominees who are also proven conservatives, and have judicial and constitutional experience. It's also true of millions of Americans, and NOT a strong enough reason to nominate someone to the Supreme Court.
You are familiar, I would imagine, with the Declaration of Independence, the document which founded the body which met to determine our Constitution? They also were discussing the form of our Supreme Court, as we are here, as well as the other branches of government which would cause this nation to become the most free, the most fair, of any nation or government ever established on the earth.
The men who drafted the document which is the basis for our Supreme Court also wrote and also believed that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
They also were not interested in electing a Pope, as you put it. They were interested in maintaining the liberties given them by the God Who Made Them. That's why they and their ancestors left for our shores to begin with.
It is not possible that these liberties can be maintained apart from a belief in a Creator-Giver. I give you America, 2005 as the greatest example.
But that page of history is turning.
please see my post #163
>Sorry bub, but if President Bush even once thought, "Her religious beliefs, by only the virtue of their existence, are positively influencing my decision to nominate her" then he subjected her to a de facto religious test and this nomination should die in committee<
That type of thinking is just what the framers were attempting to prevent.They all believed Religous beliefs were evidence of good character.Many openly said the public profession of atheism was grounds for a lack of trust.
The Constitution ban on Religous tests applies to laws and regulations of the government.It was never meant as a check on anyones thoughts or judgement.The president was given the power to appoint.The Constitution is silent on how he excercises that judgement.
Your rabid attacks on this appointment have made you part of the "thought police".If this is an example of the type of "Constitutional scholars" you guys want appointed I will take a average guy or gal any day.
Please also check out JimRobinson's thread: Suffocating the First Amendment.
You would put the idea that a president weighs in his own mind all aspects of a nominee (including religious belief) before making a choice to be part of a "test". I think that's one of the more liberal readings of the constitution that I've heard in a long time. :)
Blessed - the problem is not that the thought of her religion entered his mind. The problem is that now he has to prove that it WASN'T a conscious deciding factor. This is why they usually tell defendants not to take the witness stand.
You made a lot of good observations and points in that post #142.
>". I think that's one of the more liberal readings of the constitution that I've heard in a long time. :)<
And most dangerous.
You missed my point. The Miers nomination is ambiguous, which is why there is such controversy. By your comments to me, you indicated that President Bush could nominate anybody for the SCOTUS, and you'd trust him. Right?
What you admitted by making "trust in the President's discernmment" the sole criterion by which to judge a nominee was: the rest of the country could recognize clearly that a nominee was merely a blatant shoe-licking doofus, and you'd still "trust" that he'd made a good choice.
Thanks for the effort.
Yep
Because in the context of the Supreme Court, allowing for religious influence means the next name you hear could be "Allah".
President Bush, and Harriet Miers, and .30Carbine know that Rights are From God My Creator, and no man can take them away except by overwhelming force unto imprisonment or death.
The Founders knew the God of Creation who endowed them with UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. The multitude of politicians and judges who have ruled America since I was a baby have usurped this authority for themselves. And look where it has gotten us.
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.