Posted on 10/12/2005 9:40:01 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation.
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts." He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.
You really, really are overreacting. Calm down, everything will be fine. I trust Bush's judgment on this (or Karl Rove's). I am happy she's never been a judge. Clean slate.
>The problem is that now he has to prove that it WASN'T a conscious deciding factor. <
Doesn't have to.The Constitution puts no check on what informs his judgementin excercising his power.The check is on enactment of a law or a executive order.
I would add that we the People did not elect a man to the Presidency who believes in Allah. We elected George W. Bush, who believes in Jesus Christ, the same God our Founders worshiped, followed, and looked to for wisdom.
If you think Americans would elect a believer in Allah to the Presidency I would beg to differ with you.
If you want to interpret "test" that narrowly in its modern sense, so be it, although I personally think it reduces the purpose of the clause quite a bit, and may as well not be there, because I doubt President Bush has Harriet Miers' Religious Oath and Test filed away anywhere.
But the WH would be well-served by not bringing her religious beliefs to the table anymore. If there isn't that much else to consider about her beyond them, then maybe a mistake has been made.
>implicit religious tests would simply be unconstitutional, from my straightforward reading of this.<
That is ridiculos.Implicit is a nebulos term.You are judging thoughts.Test is explicit.
spell check is use less if you don't use it.
I am beginning to see GWB and Miss Miers in the same light as GHWB would have liked to walk away from his 1988 Quayle selection.
Yes, Republicans cannot find serious senatorial candidates in WA, WV, ND, and other states already. And everyone seems to think that Mrs. Harris is doomed in FL. There is even talk of a popular film star opposing George Allen, Jr., in VA.
If someone professes that a Christian ("religious nut") can not also be a legal scholar - we are, in fact, the most qualified - that person is a bigot and and an antichrist.
Do you not know that the legal scholars that founded this great nation were of the very same religious nuttery? Have you not seen the damage done to this great nation and her founding documents by those who refer to Christians as "religious nuts"?
Do you think Roe v. Wade, McCain-Feingold, and Public Education were brought to you courtesy of Christians or the Founders? No! but by those who oppose and defame them.
Well, then the clause is mostly window dressing. It would ban public oral or written oaths of religious beliefs as a condition of confirmation but allow virtually any appointment to be made without restriction even if religion was explicitly considered in the selection process. And if you can apply a religious test there without challenge, then what the heck is the point of the clause in the Constitution?
I still believe that if religion was a major motivation or qualification for this nomination, then it is against what the Consitutional framers said, and you can preach to me about trust and good character and religion and malignant atheists all you want, but I'm unlikely to change my mind, to be honest.
P.S. I still don't understand how you interpret Article VI so as to apply to only to laws. It refers explicitly to religious oaths and tests being applied to people taking public office in the US.
You got it. If the RATS can sober up just for one election cycle they will win the house and the Senate back.
This is completely useless. I want the cigar and fat intern back.
Test is explicit. In the exact same way "congress shall make no law" is explicit.
Nice way to twist my words.
Had you carefully read my post, you would have seen that the question asked was SPECIFIC as to a POLITICAL philosopher, and NOT a philosoher in the general sense.
Had the question been the latter, then Jesus would have been a more commendable answer (although, strictly speaking, He was not really a philosopher in the traditional sense.)
You are kidding right?
What scholarship are you referring to? As far as I can tell, Miers has none at all to judge, let alone compare for quality. I would be overjoyed if some actual Miers scholarship would be released, instead of vague reassurances in meetings with assorted religious leaders.
The more spin I see, the more I think there is no "there" there.
"This was a hostile takeover of the scholarly conservative judicial movement by the religious right"
Now I get it. Conservatives vs. Religious Right. I thought we were one and the same.
I'm serious... you read it just like they do.
Okay, now were getting to the roots of your bigotry. This we can work with.
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.