I disagree 100 percent, it is the LEFT that tries to remove religion from the public square. It is Bush who again gave voice to faith-based organizations working with government and religion freely expressed. The President is perfectly within his right making a religious background a qualification for his nominee.
You know the Founders were religious men, and the Constitution DOES recognize that our rights come from God. What's wrong with a nominee that recognizes those facets of public life, and will support them?
What's wrong with picking a person whose strong moral code might be as much of a benefit to the Court as another persons 25 years in Constitutional Law?
I never said REMOVING from the public square.
I said promoting someone's Christian beliefs has never heretofore been used as a QUALIFICATION to sit on the bench.
Qualification to sit on the bench previously was their knowledge/understanding/interpretation/alliance with the constitution/states rights positions/affirmative action stance, etc.
In Miers, she is "best" not because of those real qualifications, but because......she's a woman, she's a Christian, she supports affirmative action.....just to name a few.