In the Comments to my last post, commentator "Steve" writes:
What bothers me is that there is not supposed to be a religious test for public office, and Republicans scream bloody murder every time a Democrat so much as mentions a nominee's religion (this came up at the Pryor hearings).
So it's strange, in this context, to hear conservatives urging each other to support the Miers nomination by citing her religion. How is it that a specific religion can be a positive, but never a negative?
It's doubly embarassing to hear this kind of talk from people who scorn the notion of the SC as a "super-legislature." Anyone who supports Miers because of her religion is acting based on results rather than on judicial philosophy, and they have no room to complain if a future President nominates judges solely to produce the outcomes he (or she) desires.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Krauthammer: "Withdraw This Nominee":
- The Harriet Miers Oeuvre.--
- More on Miers, Intellectuals, and Evangelicals:...
- A Stunning Column By George Will:
- More on the Bush Administration Shamelessly Using Miers's Religion:
- A Malfunctioning White House: ...
- Harriett Miers?:
- Miers Nomination--Well, My Prediction Was Right:
- It's Miers: