Bush: Miers' Religion Cited in Court Nod

AP ^ | October 12, 2005 | NEDRA PICKLER

[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.

[cogitator]

I know that he knows hundred times more than all of us combined on who is best to serve a Supreme Court justice.

And how do you know this? Put another way: how can you demonstrate the criteria that the President uses to choose a Supreme Court nominee, so that I might trust his choice as fully as you do?

[Sir_Ed]

She was picked because of her religion...great, that's why America elected Jimmy Carter.

Maybe President Bush will point Jimmah to the Supreme Court next time, I think he's still as born-again as he ever was...

Ed

[jveritas]

Because all the federal judges he gave us so far are real originalists and conservatives.

[chris1]

This is so sad. What a joke and wasted opportunity.

GWB will truly go down in history like Clinton: Wasted Talent and Opportunity.

[counterpunch]

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...

No one is claiming that a person cannot be both a legal scholar and a Christian. It just so happens that Harriet Miers is only one of those, and was picked for that reason despite her lack of being the other.

...and and an antichrist.

Yeah, this is where that "religious nut" label comes in. 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"?

Look, I'm just saying that this is going to be the prevailing opinion of conservative judicial philosophy within the legal community because Bush has decided that religiousness is a substitute for legal scholarship.

If you don't want this kind of negative association, then you need to insist that it isn't enough for a SCOTUS nominee.

[kjam22]

I think she was picked because he knew her and felt like she would not be a "souter". I think he honestly tried to pick someone that he trusted to be the type of judge he wanted to nominate....and that would make it through the confirmation process.

There is no doubt the dems were lying in wait for this one. They kept their powder dry on Roberts and were going to fight tooth and nail over this one. I think what he didn't expect was the reaction from Coulter, Limbaugh, Frum etal.

[Rutles4Ever]

If you think Americans would elect a believer in Allah to the Presidency I would beg to differ with you.

That's not a relevant analogy. In such a case, we the people are making that choice.

This is not about the election of a president in which the population gets to elect their representatives to vote for the president. This is about one person with the power to use religion as a guiding force in making a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a future president elected as a Christian could develop Islamic sympathies and nominate a practicing Muslim scholar to the Supreme Court on the basis of "his heart".

In an age of political correctness gone bonkers, I can't believe you don't see the danger in allowing religion as a deciding factor in selection for SCOTUS.

[mjwise]

Nice strawman, but the religious test clause pretty plainly denies the legitimacy of requiring certain religious beliefs to be present as a condition for nomination to certain federal offices.

But feel free to put more words in my mouth and not actually talk about what I said.

[.30Carbine]

She has her entire legal career, but nobody seems to care to discuss that.

Miers is the current White House Counsel in the Republican administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. She was Bush's personal lawyer, White House staff secretary, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy prior to her appointment as White House Counsel to replace Alberto Gonzales when he became Attorney General. Prior to her service in the Bush administration, Miers was a lawyer in private practice for 27 years, mostly handling business cases, and served as the first female president of both the Dallas Bar Association and later the State Bar of Texas.
wikipedia

[kjam22]

I've not read about the requirement that the president has for religious belief? Where is that written? Was it on top of the survey's sent out by the white house? You may call it a strawman.... but you're the ones using the words.... "requirement"... ? Was there a sign that said "non-christians don't bother to apply"?

You're reading this thing like liberals read it.....

[counterpunch]

Now I get it. Conservatives vs. Religious Right. I thought we were one and the same.

No. Absolutely not. The GOP/conservative base is made up of many different factions. Some are social/religious conservatives. Some are fiscal/economic conservatives. Some are legal conservatives. Some are national defense conservatives/neocons. Bush been pretty good about keeping these various groups happy by letting each group control their area of interest. John Roberts was an excellent choice in this regard, and the serious minded legal community applauded.

But it seems he decided that since there were two Supreme Court openings he would take a "one for you, one for me" approach. He crossed his constituencies, and this was his big mistake.

[.30Carbine]

Her religious belief were "cited" - there are many reasons why President Bush chose this qualified woman. Please see my post #209.

[SergeantsLady]

Real Clear Politics has a new poll out also. Basically, it appears most Republicans have adopted a wait for the confirmation hearing attitude. I'm continuing my naive belief that President Bush has far more information on Miers, RINOs, and etc... than I do... I'm not concerned that her qualifications are the "best possible"...brilliance does not always translate into practical ability to achieve goals...and the "goal" for me is a Supreme Court Justice who protects the Constitution from an activist judiciary legislating from the bench.

Given the variety of polls I've seen (which show a generally more positive attitude towards Miers than not...)...I'm beginning to believe the "controversy" over her nomination is a media driven event at this point. It's a slow news cycle and the continual revolving discussion on Miers really is not producing new information...the polls do not reflect a mass uprising against her and it's unlikely the nomination will be withdrawn. So, what's the point other than giving us something to gnaw on for a couple of weeks until the Confirmation Hearings. Perhaps, in the continuing talk show discussion something more substantive will come out...goodness knows I cannot help from listening...Rush earlier, Hannity now, Ingram later...

[kjam22]

Fiscal/economic conservative?? Isn't that typically someone with no real moral beliefs but who is extremely tight with their money??? :)

[.30Carbine]

There is no danger when the religious beliefs of the sitting president are in line with those of the Founders of this great nation.

[.30Carbine]

Good for you!

[mjwise]

President Bush is the one telling us we need to consider her religious background -- maybe we should be asking him if he applied a religious test to her nomination.

The WH consistently downplayed Roberts' conservative Catholicism but now they publicly advocate for Miers by saying her religious background "should be considered." Apparently they were against considering religious backgrounds in SC nominees before they were for it.

"Religious test" was not on my mind after either nomination -- I really didn't think it would be an issue. It's President Bush that's made this one.

[.30Carbine]

So long as his decisions are in line with the Founders and the Constitution, what's the problem? Unless you are not in that line...?

[kjam22]

I think if we ask the WH... they'll just say that no test was applied or administered. They will say BTW.... for all you conservative christians... she shares a lot of your beliefs. For all of you strict constitutionalists.... she shares a lot of your beliefs. For all you liberals... well.... we're not going to tell you much, so you have to find out for yourselves.... if you think you can :)

[Rutles4Ever]

The danger is the precedent, which the next Democrat president will take advantage of as soon as it's possible.

You obviously expect a practicing, Christian Republican to remain in the White House for the next fifty years.