[mjwise]

What? You think a religious test only can occur if President Bush sat Ms. Miers down, and forced her to attest to her evangelical beliefs in a written document as a requirement for her nomination?

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. It's especially reprehensible after the big deal that was made about Roberts' Catholicism being irrelevant to the process after he was nominated.

[mjwise]

And I should further qualify this by saying that if the absence of such religious beliefs (but with no other changes to her) would have dissuaded him from nominating her, then the nomination should definitely be killed.

[kjam22]

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.

A strict constructionist who read the constitution literally would argue that she's not taken any test regarding her religious beliefs or understanding. If you say she has, then produce the test..... :)

[Blessed]

>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.

[rwfromkansas]

You are truly a dim bulb.

A religious test is a very narrow term.

Just considering it as a factor does not qualify. Otherwise, our government would have done many, many, many things, especially in the 1800s, that the courts were wrong to uphold because actually they were religious tests.