The Religion of Harriet Miers

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.

12 thoughts on “The Religion of Harriet Miers”

  1. Don’t lose sight of the big picture here. Now we see the real danger to which the President’s political calculations concerning Ms. Miers has opened the door. The President tried to signal the religious right that Ms. Miers can be trusted to enact her evangelical Christian beliefs into law thru Supreme Court decisions, such as outlawing abortion. But in doing so, Mr. Bush also revealed that he and his Administration are either profoundly ignorant or must instead have a most cynical and even more profound contempt for the US Constitution itself. Perhaps thru pressured political miscalcuation, Mr. Bush now has brought the most important question about his Supreme Court nominees to the foreground. Perhaps now it will be possible to show to all the American people just what this Republican, so-called “conservative” majority is all about: the cynical exploitation of those with religious beliefs who wish to see those beliefs imposed thru law on all Americans. The religious right now is beginning to sense the duplicity here: the Republican insiders and leaders don’t want their new Supreme Court appointees actually to succeed in establishing in law religious beliefs about abortion or any other hot button social issue — to do that would take the issue away. With abortion outlawed, who would carry the signs and march for the conservative cause? But if Mr. Bush’s nominees act as independent judges, as they should, and fail to outlaw abortion, why then Republicans can still carry on as though they were frustrated by those shadowy “liberal” elites in the courts. Without the abortion issue, the army of the faithful might turn to other concerns and away from marching together with Republicans. These faithful might even turn to issues like economic justice for themselves as middle class people as well as America’s deteriorating infrastructure at the hands of these cynical modern day robber barons. They might awaken to the massive growth in government under these so-called “conservatives” while government’s competence and efficiency in providing for the public interest has plummeted on their watch. What every American needs to understand is that deciding questions like abortion or any other issue before the US Supreme Court by establishing in law one’s religious beliefs — beliefs to be imposed on everyone — is unconstitutional on its face. Thomas Jefferson could not have been more clear on this. The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution’s framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one’s religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. So, it doesn’t matter what church Ms. Miers goes to — if she can’t leave her religion out of her judicial decision making, then she can’t be qualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice. That is the issue that now must come out during confirmation hearings. That is the question I most want to hear asked: is it appropriate, or even constitutional to base Supreme Court decisions on religious beliefs?


  2. Drink a beer and chill out. My theory is that she is a throw-away candidate, something for the Dems to chew on…..The REAL conservatives are just around the corner, but then I like to look on the bright side of things.

    Who knows, maybe she’s able to channel the spirit of Ronald Reagan upon demand.

    Well…….maybe not. πŸ˜₯


  3. James Dobson said almost the same thing this afternoon – if we are to caution Democrats not to question John Roberts about his faith, then we can’t turn around and claim Harriet Miers’ faith is a reason to swear her in. Eschew hypocrasy.

    And I don’t believe it’s appropriate for the Supreme Court to rule on religious beliefs. It *is* appropriate for legislatures to pass laws in accordance with their beliefs, it is the obligation of the Supreme Court to judge whether those laws are constitutional.


  4. In response to Sean Murphy… Are you a Michael Savage fan? I heard this theory on his show a week or two ago. I pray that it is true, but unfortunately I don’t really think so. Bush tends to be pretty straightforward, so why would he change now?

    On another note… I found your site through the ugly cats, and have really enjoyed your perspective. πŸ™‚


  5. Yes, most visitors here are either Dale Earnhardt fans or looking for information on ugly cats. Very odd. πŸ™‚

    I’m glad you found Chasing the Wind. Pull up a chair, stay awhile. πŸ™‚


  6. No, I am definitely not a Michael Savage fan, just a really disappointed supporter of President Bush. I know who he is, but I find him a bit too pessimistic for me. (That should tickle Mike).

    My theory hasn’t changed, but I may have more than a dash of hope throw in.

    Besides, “chew toy for the dems” sounds catchy. πŸ™‚


  7. Tickled I am. I’m not a fan of Michael Savage, either, but not because he’s pessimistic. I find him waaay too rude for my tastes. Perhaps if took medication I could tolerate him. πŸ˜›


  8. I used to feel that way about Savage, but I guess that I am a convert. Sometimes I don’t care for him, but overall he is extremely intelligent. Also, I enjoy talk radio, but get tired of the Republican good/Democrat bad thing. Even if I might agree with this for the most part, I get tired of hearing it. Savage is more of an independent than the rest.


  9. A convert *to* Savage? Odd. πŸ˜›

    I agree he’s intelligent, even frequently intelligent. But then he goes off on a tirade, insulting the caller and using crude language, all the while claiming the high road. I’d rather listen to disco. πŸ˜›


  10. Understood. I generally approach his most negative behavior with the understanding that he is not a Christian. Maybe by God’s grace he will convert (there’s that word again!). I actually enjoy him more when he is not being political. I especially enjoy him when he discusses literature. But hey, I was not trying to turn this into a Michael Savage thread. Sorry πŸ˜‰


  11. That’s ok. From Dale Earnhard, Jr. to Saddam Hussein, we can’t seem to stay on topic, no matter what the subject is. πŸ˜•

    Double checking… huh, you’re right. Michael Savage was born Jewish, though he now claims to be a Universalist. He has some odd history, including at one time claiming to be liberal instead of conservative, and he’s the author of several books on homeopathic medicine that also advocated decriminalizing marijuana. He dislikes liberals and conservatives, he dislikes Democrats and Republicans, he dislikes both pro- and anti-environmental positions, he dislikes gays, he believes that you can get to heaven via Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, but not atheism.

    In short, he’s a mess. :/


Leave a Reply to Sean Murphy Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s