Saturday, October 08, 2005

Is there a Catholic bias in the conservative movement?

Could the reason for gnashing of teeth by conservatives be that Miers is a former Catholic, born-again Protestant? Is there now Protestant animus in the conservative movement, and you must be a practicing Catholic like Scalia, Thomas and Roberts to make it to the highest court in the nation?

Christian and born-again Harriet Miers, recently nominated to the Supreme Court, has been pilloried by the very conservatives who should be ecstatic with her nomination.

Despite assurances from Bush that Miers is a true conservative, recent calls for her to withdraw have reached a dissonant cacophony of angry screeches.

A wide range of conservative personalities as far reaching as columnist Charles Krauthammer to Operation Rescue, the radical pro-life activist group, have condemned the Miers nomination and asked her to withdraw. Krauthammer writes, "There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president?"

Accused as a lightweight and Bush crony, former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum chimed in with the following disparaging observation. "There is scarcely a single knowledgeable legal conservative in Washington who supports this nomination." And sure enough, conservative media pundit and former Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan piled on and said that Miers lacked legal gravitas. “Were she not a friend of Bush, and female," he says, "she would never have even been considered.”

Well, dah. That could be said for half the staff on the Hill and every female government official.

Besides...whatever happened to presidential prerogative in naming a Supreme Court justice? Since when did a Supreme Court nomination become a plebiscite?

The record reveals very little about Miers; but when the Bush administration stopped the 50-year practice of asking the American Bar Association to grade potential Court nominees in 2001, Miers argued against this new policy, a good call.

She was once a Democrat who financially supported Al Gore's presidential bid in 1988; and was herself president of the state bar association, nemesis to Republican corporate hacks.

From my perch, I say confirm Miers. So what if she didn’t graduate from an Ivy League law school? I mean speaking of cronyism, if it hadn’t been for the influence of our dear leader's dad at Yale, Junior might've trailed Miers at Southern Methodist University, with a few strings pulled at that.

And as to her legitimacy to Christ, she came to the Lord through a coworker, a new church and in accordance with evangelical preaching, the power and grace of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, Protestant denominations teach the Holy Spirit convicts and reveals; to each in accordance with God's will. And from Mathews 22:20-21, the Good Book says, "Render...unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

In other words, keep them separate. Sort of like what our constitution prescribes.

It would be refreshing for the Court to have a judge who is a devout Christian of a different flavor. One who is guided by the rule of law and leaves the Christian gospel for Sunday worship service and nightly prayers.

Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Please, for the love of Christ, keep your religion out of my government. Worship how you want, pick your own flavor, but do not decide Supreme Court cases based on your personal religion.

That being said, there are several people more qualified for the position, religiour or otherwise. Honestly I don't know what Bush is thinking.

I am confused when you say "And one who is guided by the rule of law and leaves the Christian gospel for Sundays and nightly prayers."
Yes, this is what I want. And yet you mention her religious propensity several times. This should NOT be a factor in whether she will decide law for this country. How she interprets law is the primary issue, and since she has little experience, wtf?
 
To al, what I'm trying to say is there is a surfeit of born-again Christians who have nuanced thoughts on the nature of God and spirit.

But for those who follows the Bible's tenets literally, then they must accept Jesus's call to render unto the government what it is due it.

Which to me means that one can be a devout Christian and nonetheless follow constitutional law based on precedence and the rule of law.

Religious beliefs are pursued through one's personal walk with God, not in the service of government.

Sorry I didn't make myself clearer.:)
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Aight, first you GOTTA turn post verification on. It's one click, and will eliminate ALL spam.

Second, you say she can be a good Christian and abide by the law. Well, right now abortion is legal. So when they eventually vote on it again, she won't be considering a woman's personal rights over her body, all she will be thinking about is Christianity's stance on abortion. Fark the law, what's my religion say? And that's no good.
 
Hi,just surfing and found your site! Liked what I saw.If you are
interested, go see my internet home based business
related site. It isnt anything special but it's filled with money making ideas
and you may find something of interest.
 
I don’t know enough about her to say one way or the other on her confirmation. We’ll see how the hearings go.
Seems like I read things from both sides on the Roe v Wade issue and nobody really knows and nobody is happy. Senator Harry Reid seemed happy though, the way he was walking around with her and praising her I think he wanted a date.
I’m kinda surprised Bush is giving up one of his best lawyers, he may need her someday.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?