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.
If true, is this thin ice re: Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution ?
So is it appropriate to pick or trash a nominee based upon a nominee's religious beliefs or not?
This oughta kill it.
Apparently neither party has the capacity to comprehend the simple term "religious test".
Now that is irksome. Her qualifications should be the first
consideration. The fact that she is a Christian does not
prove a thing about anything.
That is a disservice to Chritstians, if she turns out to be
a moron, that is the end of Evangelicals being placed on the
court. Perhaps GWB should have said "She has a great legal
mind and she shares my values".
Heck, why not nominate Jimmy Carter. He's an Evangelical, too!
This is a nightmare. The Dems' will hang us with this quote. The White House insisted that Roberts' Catholicism was irrelevant. Now evangelicial Christianity is a criterion for the nominee.
While I can find nothing wrong with President Bush considering the religious beliefs of Miers, this is likely to raise some questions among opponents of her nomination...at least from those on the left.
It was not a bright thing for President Bush to do, and is going to come back and bite him on the butt.
In-friggin'-ept. No matter which side you fall on the question of the widsom of the pick. This latest front is a two-fer. Guaranteed to cause the Left to perk up its ears and howl at the moon; and as an added bonus, do nothing to reassure the conservative critics who are concerned that she isn't the best available person for the job.
ugh.
I am starting to think that the RATS may be right about his NOT being the sharpest knife in the drawer.
He says this to cool the Christian conservatives but it also heats up the Left so that anything he gains he looses.
You may be right, the opposition of both sides combined may be too much but at this point it may still be too soon to say.
What are the dems gonna say? You're a Christian so we don't want you on the SC?
sheer stupidity....
sheer stupidity....
Well said.
It is not appropriate, in my opinion, to pick a SC candidate based on their religion.
I came to thatconclusion during the 2000 debates. When asked what political philosopher he regarded as being the most influential, GWB said "Jesus Christ".
At best, that response is shameless pandering. At worst, well...
"just to explain the facts."
Mere innuendo that facts aren't being explained.
Oh, and only to select individuals. Why Dobson and not the public?
Kind of like the mysteriously Rovian Social Sec. Plan. Not much details of the plan were given but "facts" were given why we should not oppose it. Same Rove M.O. here.
Maybe a good thing if he gets indicted.
DANGER WILL ROBINSON!! DANGER!!!
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.