So you think this is a bad choice?
Suppose this question is asked in the upcoming hearings:
Ms Meirs, are you a devout Christian?
Answer: Yes, I am.
What can they possibly say next? It will be some platitude of . . . can we truly expect a devout Christian to seperate themselves from their faith and rule on cases brought up fairly? Do you see the problem the Dems will have? They can't attack her for being Christian? They will hate that she is and make noises about too much religion in government, but they can only go so far because They Will Lose Their Seats.
People, this is about Karl Rove. He knows the Christian force in the US is still dominant. The Dems can't paint themselves overtly anti Christians or they lose votes.
Fr. Drinan is a "devout Christian" as well, but I sure as heck wouldn't want him serving on the Supreme Court.
Suppose Bishop Gene "Vicki" Robinson, the openly gay Episcopalian bishop in New England, were nominated for the Supreme Court, this question is asked in the upcoming hearings: "Mr. Robinson, are you a devout Christian?"
Answer: "Yes, I am."
What can YOU possibly say next?
That he isn't?
There is no universally agreed upon set of values that a "devout Christian" might have. Devout Episcopalians and Quakers support abortion rights and gay marriage. Devout Catholics believe that divorce is always prohibited. It's not a standard, but many standards.
The problem with President Bush's nomination is that she is an unknown. He promised to nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas. That is what was expected of him, and that is why so many people supported him, and have been willing to bear so many disappointments, like Terri Schiavo and the open borders and high deficits and outrageous spending. The sense has been, all along, that while these other things are all bad or nasty, the Big Enchilada is the Supreme Court, and when it came down to it, Bush could be depended on to nominate staunch strict-constructionist conservatives to the Supreme Court. Pro-lifers, et al, have not been pushing Republican for 32 years to get non-pro-lifers nominated.
What has happened, instead, is two successive cases of "trust me". Folks made themselves feel good about Roberts, although Roberts never, for his own part, ever explicitly denounced abortion or Roe v. Wade. He made statements while on the job, but he also said that it's settled precedent. Instead of KNOWING where Roberts stood, as Reagan did when he named Scalia, and Bush 41 did when he named Thomas, we DON'T know where Roberts stands on Roe. We can only infer, and that is not naming a Scalia or a Thomas. However, Roberts has been given a pass, with lots of "trust me". Bush wore out the "trust me" card with Roberts. This nomination is another "trust me", and that was not the bargain. There is no way to know what will happen with this nominee for years afterwards, long after the current Republicans can be held accountable.
I note that Clinton was much more honest and straightforward about his nominees. There was no doubt whatsoever which way Ginsburg and Breyer swung. And Clinton faced a potentially hostile Senate. Bush's party controls the Senate, and he has sent up two unknown quantities. With Roberts, people decided to hope, But with this nomination, it is simply too much. This was not the deal, at least not the deal that people like me signed up for. It's a sucker punch in the gut. We were anticipating the appointment of a clear, principled, conservative and a fight on principle.
Instead, we are the ones in doubt, and the Democratic leaders are pronouncing themselves well-pleased.
Bush will get his nominee. But he has lost the trust of many today. In his calculation, that is evidently ok.