Tell me if this violates the principle of seperation of church and state:
WASHINGTON - President 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.”
Personally, I agree witht the following:
Some conservative leaders say the emphasis on Miers’ religion is patronizing. They note that two months ago during the confirmation process for Chief Justice John Roberts, the administration said Roberts’ Roman Catholic faith should not be a factor in his confirmation.
**
“The constant bringing up of her faith is inappropriate,” says Jan LaRue, chief counsel at Concerned Women for America, who describes herself as an evangelical Christian and wants more detail on Miers’ views of constitutional law. “No one’s giving us any real information about her. We’re in an echo chamber.”
It seems like Miers’ religion is an issue because she has no track record. They’re looking at her religious beliefs to try and figure out how she feels about certain issue. Roberts had a record.
How could the nomination of someone to the SC be a violation of church and state seperation?
Because it seems as if he’s saying that she was nominated because of her religion. What’s hard about that?
**What is wrong with including in a nomination selection a person’s personal value system as one criteria? **
Nothing, in and of itself, but a personal value system is not the same thing as a religion, and in any event, it certainly should not be the only or primary criteria.
(edit: It certainly seems to me that the president is trying to convey the message that Miers is safe for conservatives because, for instance, she’ll rule against Roe due to her religious beliefs. Which is entirely inappropriate.)
Because it seems as if he’s saying that she was nominated because of her religion. What’s hard about that?
Nothing inherently unconstutional about this per se… but…
It certainly seems to me that the president is trying to convey the message that Miers is safe for conservatives because, for instance, she’ll rule against Roe due to her religious beliefs. Which is entirely inappropriate.)
I have the same concern. Religion shouldn’t factor into Constitutional interpretation at all, and I fail to see why this is a valid reason for choosing her.
I agree with the edit. Roe v. Wade is simply bad law. It is bad law regardless of which side of the abortion issue one takes.
He didn’t say she was nominated because of her religion. What is hard about that?
A religion can certainly provide an underlying foundation of a personal value system. In looking at someone for such a position, I would certainly take a look at that aspect of them. Religion comes up all the time in confirmation processes. Witness Schumer’s vote against Prior, I think, because of his deeply held personal beliefs, code for devout Catholic.
I bet this statement will hurt her more - the Democrats will fear what vitus suggested, and the Republicans will see this as another indications that she doesn’t have outstanding qualifications and was nominated for all the wrong reasons.
“I think that’s a stretch. By that logic it’s a de facto rule that women, Jews, and blacks can’t be president.”
The people have the right to vote based on any criteria they choose. Appointments made by govt officials like the President are an entirely different animal.
Her religion is obviously not a de facto religious test since others he has nominated do not share her religion.
Clearly, Bush did not use the same criteria in nominating Miers that he used for nominations like Roberts. My question is not “Has the president always used a religious test,” but “Did the president use a religious test in nominating Miers.”
I think that he clearly did. I don’t know how else to interpret his statement, frankly.
The latest latest leak is that it was limited to women (no shocker) but that several candidates said “No thanks”. Exact reasons haven’t been given, but they range from “Not interested” to “Who’d be nuts enough to put yourself or your family through that?”
It’ll be interesting if it turns out she was his non-first choice (which the above doesn’t mean is true, just that other candidates demured), which would explain a little bit about it all.
My working non-scientific theory, which I haven’t noted on LR yet but have to friends: A failed Miers nomination works to Bush’s advantage. Why? She is seen as unqualified by his base and the Republican Senate (potentially the Dems too). He’ll have to nominate another woman, and the next nominee will be an eminently qualified, and extremely conservative.
It’d be a ridiculously complex move to try and pull off, and knowing how much the President values loyalty, I can’t ever see him asking someone to do this. Though I believe Miers would gladly walk through a wall for him, so you never know.
“I think that’s a stretch. By that logic it’s a de facto rule that women, Jews, and blacks can’t be president.”
The people have the right to vote based on any criteria they choose. Appointments made by govt officials like the President are an entirely different animal.
I dont see anything in the Consitution dealing which criteria the president can or cannot use in nominating people either (aside from certain age and citizenship requirements in some cases)
Regardless of the wisom (or lack thereof) of using religion as a factor for nominating Miers, I dont see how the Consitution speaks to it, therefore I dont see how it could be unconstitutional.
Her religion is obviously not a de facto religious test since others he has nominated do not share her religion.
Clearly, Bush did not use the same criteria in nominating Miers that he used for nominations like Roberts. My question is not “Has the president always used a religious test,” but “Did the president use a religious test in nominating Miers.”
I think that he clearly did. I don’t know how else to interpret his statement, frankly.
An alternative interpretation is that he picked her because of her personal loyalty to him in combination with his preference for her religious views (similar to his own) and his belief that her constitutional views have ossified. He is now using the religion criteria in an attempt to placate his evangelical base. I’m vaguely giving him the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that religion was not the basis of his choice.