If POTUS said to me about a Supreme Court Justice nominee, “Let me reassure you that he’s Jewish,” I’m pretty sure that would NOT reassure me that he was therefore eminently qualified for the proposed job. Otherwise, why bring up religion at all? Well, Bush did just that with his choice of Miers for the high court. Of course, he didn’t say she was Jewish, he said that she was an evangelistic Christian, which somehow told his base that this was the choice for them.
As for her qualifications, Miers starts down that road with a poor showing on a questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Arlen Specter said yesterday, "Sen. Leahy and I took a look at it and agreed that it was insufficient and are sending back a detailed letter asking for amplification on many, many of the items."
This is the perfect time for the following letter to the editor in today’s Los Angeles Times which ties together a constitutional issue with Bush’s religious litmus test for Miers:
Your Oct. 17 editorial about President Bush's emphasis on Harriet Miers' religious beliefs as a basis for nominating her to the Supreme Court failed to mention the most important and disturbing aspect of this emphasis. His spotlighting her religion implies that if she were not an evangelical Christian, he would not have nominated her.
Article VI of the Constitution says "all … judicial officers … of the United States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." But Bush has announced that there is a "religious test" and that Miers has passed it. This appears to violate the Constitution that Bush swore to uphold as president. The Times should not comment on the improper religious aspects of this nomination without censuring this violation.
Rancho Santa Margarita
--One more abrogation of the oath of office to chalk up on the POTUS belt.
No doubt all of this focus on Harriet will take a back seat to the upcoming indictments, but it would be well to keep the Miers nomination interest active, since her confirmation could mean many years of inept and unwise decisions at the ultimate court of the land.