Bush: Part Of Harriet Miers’ Life Is Her Religion
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Religion, Supreme CourtPresident Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers’ religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any “wink and a nod� campaign for confirmation.“People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,� Bush told reporters at the White House. “Part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.�
Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination “just to explain the facts.� He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee’s religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.
I’m completely done with Meir’s as a nominee now. A possible SCOTUS justice should be chosen because she’s a gifted legal scholar, not because of her religious leanings. Because let it be clear, Bush is talking about Christianity. So now the litmus test is whether you’re a good Christian or not.
Oh, and by the way, Jews not allowed. Yes, I know he didn’t say this, but read between the hymns. Completely and utterly ridiculous. This is what happens when you get a zealot in the Oval Office.
John Cole has something to say about this.
Republicans waxed eloquent about the establishment cause, about how people could serve on the court and not have their religious beliefs interfere with their judgement, about how Democrats and other were against people of faith, and so on. I didn’t buy it then, and felt that it was simply an attempt to bully nominees through by using religion as a blunt instrument against political opposition.But, oh, how the times have changed these past few months. It turns out that now, in fact, religion IS a partial qualification and that the religious views of a candidate are a material aspect of their fitness to serve. After all, as Bush himself has stated, “Part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.�
And if anyone is pissed at this latest bit of nonsense, it should be the evangelical base. After this, they can have Justice Sunday every god damned Sunday for the rest of their lives, and they can’t say a damned thing if Democrats ask whether a person’s religious beliefs may unduly influence their judgement. When Joe Biden is up there talking at length about whether or not Harriet Miers can judge Roe fairly with her religious beliefs such an important part of her life, before James Dobson’s head explodes, he best remember who is to blame- Bush and the White House.
After all- if a person’s religious beliefs are enough of a reason to confirm someone- shouldn’t it reason that those same religious beliefs could be used to deny confirmation?
Indeed.
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 13th, 2005 and is filed under Religion, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 13th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
great point Justin.
I only hear crickets on the right regarding this point. HMMMM.
October 13th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
I thought she was a bad pick from the start, for a matrix of reasons none of which was sufficient in itself to turn me against her. Lack of court experience by itself is not a killer, nor is being a close friend of the president. But add them up, and the scale tips against her.
An attempt to smuggle a religious zealot stealth candidate onto the court would be strike three, to me. But I’m not yet convinced that this is what’s happening. Look at Bush’s quote. “Part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.â€Â?
That’s a litmus test? Hardly. Religion is a part of every Americans’ life — even the non-religious who yet have to navigate through our religion-saturated society. Everyone here has an attitude toward religion.
As usual I have no idea what Bush really meant, after reading his own jumbled language filtered through a generally hostile media. So I’m still waiting to call strike three.
Justin, how you get “No Jews allowed” out of that quote is utterly beyond me. And how far from the “right” sites I have been seeing “John” has to stray to hear the sound of crickets must be measured in miles, not yards.
October 13th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
This is the full quote.
Okay, this is the FIRST thing be beings up. Sorry Cal, but that certainly seems like a litmus test to me.
And let’s be honest here, Bush would never pick a Jew if religion is a litmus test, since his Christian religion is such a huge part of his life. The logic certainly follows and it doesn’t seem like a jump at all if indeed religion was part of his decision, which the above quote demonstrates rather clearly.
Strike three for me.
October 13th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
What was the context of that quote? Did Bush just utter it out of the blue? Or was he answering a question. And if the latter, what was the question?
Why not check the transcript?
We’ll take a couple of questions. Deirdre.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Why do people in this White House feel it’s necessary to tell your supporters that Harriet Miers attends a very conservative Christian church? Is that your strategy to repair the divide that has developed among conservatives over her nominee?
PRESIDENT BUSH: People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers’ background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas. I remind people that Harriet Miers is one of the — has been rated consistently one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She’s eminently qualified for the job. And she has got a judicial philosophy that I appreciate; otherwise I wouldn’t have named her to the bench, which is — or nominated her to the bench — which is that she will not legislate from the bench, but strictly interpret the Constitution.
So our outreach program has been just to explain the facts to people. But, more importantly, Harriet is going to be able to explain the facts to the people when she testifies. And people are going to see why I named her — nominated her to the bench, and she’s going to make a great Supreme Court judge.
So it seems it wasn’t the “first thing” he brough up. It was the first thing the press brought up. But the way the news stories are written, you’d never know that, would you?
October 13th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Interesting point, but let’s make it clear that he was answering a question about his Administration’s own messaging. And that’s HIS messaging.
In that context, the idea of “who brought it up first” is certainly debatable. The reporter was merely asking questions in response to what the White House said first. Why indeed did they find it necessary to point out that she attends a very conservative Christian church? I think we both know the answer to that one.
For my money, I’m more inclined to say that the President did bring it up first (through subordinates delivering it) and then reaffirmed it here. Is that an intellectually dishonest argument?
October 18th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Cal, I definitely think your quoting of the transcript helps Justin make his point. Now it looks even worse to me than what I originally heard reported.
August 6th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Good job.