[Rutles4Ever]

Some trap:

Senator: "Ms. Miers, how do you interpret Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution?"


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.

[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.

[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?

[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.