Bush has gone an additional step too far. Last week in the face of criticism, he defended Harriet Miers with a wink and a nod. “Trust me,” he said. I don’t because Bush isn’t always conservative, especially on fiscal matters. So I announced my opposition to Harriet Miers, not because I don’t think she’s a swell person, but because she doesn’t appear to have made strict constructionism and constitutional law as a priority in her life. How will she rule on important issues? I think the issue to to important for a “trust me” type of response.
So yesterday, Bush goes a step further and says that we should support her because Harriet Miers is religious.
Well, by golly, I can’t tell you how offended I am by that. Don’t get me wrong, I love religious people. I happen to think I’m a religious person. I think people who build their faith in Jesus as a central tenet in their life are among the finest, morally upright people I come in contact with.
But this isn’t about whether Harriet Miers is a likeable person, a faithful person, or a religious person. Is she a qualified person? I don’t have any idea. She may be a darn fine lawyer, but apparently she’s spent her life representing other people’s views. How will she rule on the Supreme Court using her own views?
Nobody knows. I need more than a “trust me, she’s one of us” winks to support this nomination, and I’m offended that Bush thinks his religious conservative base will support Harriet Miers just because she goes to church.
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned by this next Supreme Court, I want it to be for the right reason. Sure, as a Christian I am appalled at abortions, but Roe vs. Wade was a political ruling that incorrectly abridged the right of states. Harriet Miers must have a firm grasp of constitutional law to understand why Roe vs. Wade is wrong from an intellectual standpoint, not just a moral standpoint. The Supreme Court should not the seat of a theocracy, even if it’s my faith they share.