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.

[CharlesWayneCT]

This is not a "religious test". Religion, at least some religions, define a philosophy of life. It is the outward effect of religion that Bush is citing as important.

The argument against "religious tests" as regards nominees is that you should not point out that a persons religion teaches a specific fact which would override that person's adherance to the law.

For example, an evangelical may believe that you should not drink. But it would be inappropriate reject the nominee because you say they will rule against beer companies.

If religious views gave a president comfort that a nominee can be trusted, there is nothing wrong with that. Bush's religious views helped me to trust him, because I know his faith puts a premium on being truthful.

And you all know this, or at least most of you. In this particular instance your common sense is overridden by ulterior motives, which I will not discuss because I am still out of that discussion.

As to the constitutional argument, I will just say that it is a good thing that nobody nominated any of you to the court, because your interpretation of the constitution is woefully suspect in this instance.

[p[adre29]

And by their asking they open the door to her explaination.

That is by definition a "softball". And thusly the trap.
And if the 'Crats then say "did you take an oath or do you
think your religion would keep from being fair while on the
bench?" another softball if you think about it. what are the
'Crats going to say "we think your faith will hinder you"
Bingo! Christian Conservatives then have a rallying cry.

[11th_VA]

I don't see how this hurts Bush. The RATs are always screaming for diversity, so let's have some. How many evangelicals are on the court?(none). Lot's of Catholics, Jews, and Mainline Protestants, but no Evangelicals...

I can't believe I'm defending Bush on this one, but I am ...

[Bush 100 Percent]

"What are the dems gonna say? You're a Christian so we don't want you on the SC?"

Believe it or not, it seems to be the conservatives who are pushing that issue ......

[Bush 100 Percent]

The point is - she lives a real life, like a lot of people who have to live with the decisions of the SC. It makes them less likely to waive away the consequences of their rulings (aka Kelo) because they've come to some scholarly conclusion.

[jveritas]

How do you know she is not qualified? Do you know more about her than President Bush? If you do please share it with us.

[mlc9852]

Not all conservatives. I think she'll do just fine. And I'm glad she isn't a judge.

[jveritas]

The US Consitution is the best Constitution in history of man because it was written by very enlightened men to be easily understood by the average man and women and does not need an expert to explain it to the people.

[LexBaird]

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.

Well, I can. It is unconstitutional to make such considerations. "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[Bush 100 Percent]

Glad to hear that. I agree with you 100% So do many people I know.

[BikerNYC]

He should withdraw her nomination and pick a qualified judge...

The Constitution is not some document that only a privileged class of persons can read and determine its meaning. We don't live in some sort of technocracy in which only those with specialized knowledge determine the scope of our laws. The Constitution is written in everyday language and there is no reason why non-judges and even non-lawyers should not sit on the USSC.

[stylin19a]

thanx...and thanx for the historical perspective.

I can just see the MSM & the Rats start asking the question:
weren't the other potential nominees religious enough ?
or some other such drivel.

[Blessed]

>I would HOPE that if, theoretically, a better candidate was atheist, he would go with the better candidate. We're appointing a jurist, not a pope - and I'm a practicing Catholic, so that's not a swipe at Christianity.<

You sound more like one of those Dems that calls CSpan on the GOP line and bashes Bush.

No Christian would advocate putting an agent of Satan in a position of leadership.I suggest you do a little less practicing and a little more being.

[mlc9852]

Why do you consider it a test?

[borkrules]

How do you know she is not qualified? Do you know more about her than President Bush? If you do please share it with us.

That is a 180 degree reversal of the burden of proof and I'm sick of reading it on these threads.

Those who are critical don't owe the proponents an explanation. The burden is on the President to show us and the Senate why she's qualified. After all, he selected her to spend the remainder of her natural life on the nation's highest court, deciding issues of grave importance to this country.

And if the best you can offer is:

(A) Wait until the hearings, (B) I trust Bush; and now (C) She goes to the right Church

then I would say you haven't carried your burden.

I'm open to being convinced, but intimating that I'm sexist, elitist, a potential third party "unappeasable", and now that I (who was raised Baptist) am anti-evangelical is NOT going to cut it. In fact, its starting to make me think unpleasant thoughts about President Bush that he and his supporters would DREAM of employing these tactics AGAINST his base!

[Bush 100 Percent]

There is NO religious TEST. Do you want the Pres. to nominate someone without considering her character? Her religion is a indicator of her character. Notice I said indicator. Should we now have to hide the role of our religion in our lives in this country? People can mention everything else about the candidates lives, but not their religion? It's a key part of who she is.

[borkrules]

The Constitution is written in everyday language and there is no reason why non-judges and even non-lawyers should not sit on the USSC.

The Justices of the SCOTUS consult and are called upon to interpret more than just their pocket constitutions.

This Huey Long populist "anybody can be a Supreme Court Justice" argument is another real irritant. Since when did conservative thought get so anti-intellectual and anti-merit?

[mlc9852]

There was no TEST! He picked someone he was comfortable with - what is the problem with that? It's his pick - not his "base", not the dems, not Laura's, not yours, not mine - his. What have you got against this woman?

[LexBaird]

How about these five: Bush vowed nominating another Scalia.

[Blessed]

>All they have to do is cite the constitution and ask a professed originalist what her opinion is on religious tests. Either she's against her own nomination (with W's words in quotes), or she's proven to be a phony originalist. They don't have to utter the word "religion" to back her into a corner. <

I am glad you are a "constitutional scholar" because your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.The president said it was ONE of the Qualifications that made her a good candidate.One of the qualifications that made Roberts a good candidate was his Christianity.To deny this is to apply a religous test.