Thursday, October 13, 2005

The Miers Meltdown

Well, if I was wary about selecting Miers, I'm now more and more opposed to her selection, especially after yesterday's announcement by President Bush that one of the primary reasons Ms. Miers was selected was because of her faith. Here's what he said to reporter yesterday:

"People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers...They want to know Harriet Miers's background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion."

Whoa, flag on the play.

Now being a minister, I don't hide my faith. I'm openly share with people that I am a Christian. That is one of the beauties of American society; people can openly worship whatever God they choose (or no God at all). Religion is one of the strengths of American society and that should be celebrated. But, this all said, I don't really care if a Supreme Court justice has a faith background or not. It's not important to the position.

The president is of course trying to persuade his base and has dropped the whole "wink and nod" approach that gave quiet assurances to the far right that this person was "one of them." But this will fail because such rhetoric scares the sensible center. We are opposed to faith, but we don't want our government officials, especially those who are going be deciding major constitutional issues, to be chosen primarily on their faith. I want to know if they have the accumen to handle the job. I don't care if she has gone to church every Sunday or hasn't gone since last Christmas. The only place where religion should matter is...well in a job like mine.

Of course, some on the religious right who imagine a Taliban on the Potomac are saying that the Senate better vote for a Christian. Here is what the Reverend Pat Robertson said:

Television evangelist Pat Robertson warned Republican senators not to vote against Miers, noting that most of them had voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- whom Robertson described as a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer -- when she was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993. "Now they're going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative president and they're going to vote against her for confirmation?" he asked on his show. "Not on your sweet life if they want to stay in office."

This should make anybody nervous. We are America, not Iran. A person's faith should not be a factor in picking a new justice to the nation's highest court.

The more I hear about Miers and Bush, the more I can't support this nomination. Start over, Mr. Bush and find a justice in the mold of John Roberts.


At 2:02 PM, Blogger GreenSmile said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 2:34 PM, Blogger GreenSmile said...

I am so heartened to hear anybody else even say it: "A person's faith should not be a factor in picking a new justice to the nation's highest court."

And I understand that to cut both ways: A person with religous convictions is neither qualified NOR DISQUALIFIED by those convictions. On the other hand, the position to be filled in this case does demand a record of ajudication that confirms to all that the person is of highest intelligence and impartiality and has particularly deep insight into constitutional law. As a liberal I dread the decisions Roberts will make but I would have picked a 100 John Roberts before I picked an unexperienced Bush doesn't just look bad, it is bad. Bad judgment about the nation's need for qualified judicial talent at the very least.

At 4:44 PM, Blogger Mitch/Mike said...

Google Miers' church Valley View Christian Center. The media keep referencing her "anti-abortion church," but their website says they take no stand on controversial issues. Their statements of beleif are centered on the most basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian tradition, with no mention of any side issues.

At 7:59 PM, Blogger Mulligan said...

I am concerned about being badgered for five years by the 'faith' issue. But for me, the more pertinent fact that Ms. Meirs has worked with the President for a decade and is presently his chief legal counsel. The SC supposedly provides a necessary check and is independent. If any prior president had nominated his chief counsel or a lawyer with whom he was well acquainted, America would have laughed. Harriet's faith should not be an issue one way or the other. But her present employment should disqualify her from sitting on a park bench, let alone the highest bench in the land.

By the way, I am not a Republican, But I applaud your blog. It is time that the Republican Party get 'Rad-i-cal' in the sense of return to its 'roots.' It is time prune the corrupt, the cronies, and those obedient 'Loyalists' that give thinking people of all 'Faiths' or no 'Faith' a bad name.

At 7:48 AM, Blogger halfback jack said...

I think the Miers nomination is going to ultimately self-destruct as well. The cronyism (I still have flashbacks of "You're doing a heckuva job Brownie.")

This current crop of republicans would do well to examine what happened to the Republican party after the stock market crash of 1929. I cannot help but wonder if we are headed down a similar path......


Post a Comment

<< Home

!-- End .box -->