As somebody who also found religion in his mid-30s, I find Harriet Miers’ story very interesting. Take a look at this article here. Yes, yes, I know Miers’ is a Bush crony, never has been a judge and is in fact the devil incarnate — at least if you believe all the commentators out there. If I were Bush I would have probably named 100 people before naming her. But given that she’s likely to be confirmed despite all the noise, let’s hope her she applies her new religious feelings in the right way on the Bench. And of course there’s another reason to be join the pessimists: Jimmy Carter is an evangelical too.
UPDATE: This article makes the very interesting and unusual argument that Miers is a trojan horse for conservatives.
ANOTHER UPDATE: The great Mark Steyn basically agrees with my take on Miers here. (registration required for the Spectator).
“let’s hope she applies her new religious feelings in the right way on the Bench.”
I’d be very, very interested to hear what you think the right way to apply religious feelings on the bench is, Geoff. Sounds like a pretty tall order to me.
I’m not at all convinced she is going to be confirmed. I think she’s the straw that broke the bake of conservatives who’ve been lukewarm about many Bush policies since the early days but bucked up, often purely due to the Supreme Court. (I admit in the last election I was amazingly luke warm about him, but voted with misgivings because who Kerry was and because of the SCOTUS issue) But not only are conservatives likely to blanche, but now that here pro-life and religious views have come out more I think Democrats are going to be up in arms.
So you have someone who, by the time voting comes around, is at best viewed luke warm by conservatives and who is the sort likely to generate a fight by liberals, but who (unlike Roberts) has few, if any, legal qualifications.
I’m starting to agree with those who said at least Kerry would have led to gridlock, thus keeping spending down, and would have had a real opposition, unlike what Bush has. (And would have shaken things up in the war, unlike Bush did the last year)
Ryan, I’m pretty sure you know what I mean by that. Most conservative religious people believe that there is something special about the Constitution and the role of the United States in history. Most of us believe that re-writing the Constitution or inventing new rights that aren’t in the Constitution is not the right path. I’m inclined to hope that Miers’ religious conversion has also brought her to a new knowledge of the importance of the Constitution, but of course we don’t know that for sure. I am not enough of a legal scholar to debate you and the endless stream of lawyers on the Bloggernacle on this issue, so let’s leave it at that — as far as I’m concerned at least.
Clark, a lot can happen between now and confirmation time, but I tend to agree with the article I linked which says that by then conservatives will support Miers and liberals will be split as they were on Roberts. I’d have to guess at least 60 senators will vote for her. Republicans cannot go against the president on this — there is too much they need from the president in return. But, hey, I’ve been wrong before, so who knows.
Geoff, I’m sorry if my comment sounded like a battle cry. I wasn’t looking for a debate, and wasn’t trying to discredit you. I’m noting that you appear to have a position on what is the right way to apply one’s religious feelings on the bench, and calling that out because I think that is a very sticky issue, on which there are a multitude of possible positions. I don’t think there is any right way to apply one’s religious feelings on the bench, except, perhaps, to not apply them, but that in itself is quite thorny as it may be 1)impossible and 2) immoral. Anyway, I just think this is a very difficult and complex issue, and was curious about whether you had an interesting answer.
As to your assumption that religious people seem to value the constitution more, I had no idea that’s what you were referring to. But it’s an interesting idea, but still not compelling enough for me to feel good about Miers as a nominee. I honestly pray that Clark is right about her. (And Clark, your reasons for voting for Bush exactly reflect my own– it was all about this pick, and he screwed it up!)
“Republicans cannot go against the president on this — there is too much they need from the president in return.”
Like what? What they “need from the president,” more than anything, is an acceptable Supreme Court nominee. And as to the other things they need from this president … it isn’t clear that they’re going to be getting any of them anyway. So I’m not sure I see your point.
I don’t know if I am as skeptical as Clark as to whether or not she’ll be confirmed. But I hope he’s right. Really I do.
Aaron B
I just keep getting more and more angry about this.
Aaron, my point is that Republican Senators confirm the Supreme Court pick, and they do indeed need a lot from the White House. The need presidential support for reelection, for their pet projects and bills, etc. It’s just part of the interplay of politics. Of course, senators have gone against their president before — just look at Abe Fortas. But I just don’t see it happening at this time.
Ryan, my reference to religious people supporting the Constitution more has to do with conservative evangelicals, Catholics, Jews and Mormons. This is clearly a political movement with a religious overtone, and it involves a peculiarly conservative and religious view of the importance of Constitutionalism. President Bush’s rhetoric has indicated he supports this viewpoint, and Miers has had the job of vetting Supreme Court picks lately, so perhaps Miers will prove to be in the mode of Scalia and Thomas. But of course nobody knows for sure.
Davis, I am curious about why you are getting more and more angry.
Geoff,
Here’s why I’m getting more and more angry: I spend a lot of time with very liberal people. This has the general effect of pushing me rightward as I witness their sloppy thinking, hyperbole, and general dumbishness (note that this is not exclusive to liberals; conservatives display the same characteristics; it’s just that I’m not around that many conservatives). This is nowhere more true than in the matter of George W. Bush, his intelligence, integrity, and competence. But then he goes and does something that verifies pretty much everything they’ve been saying about him — all of which I’ve denied outright or at least moderated. It angers me. I don’t think i can take it anymore.
The Prophet and Apostles take a lot of unpopular positions, evincing a lack of concern for how they are percieved by the world. I respect this, given the provenance of these positions. GWB, however, is not GBH, and, his affirmations to the contrary notwithstanding, I do not believe GWB is guided by God. The man is President. He shouldn’t be a slave of public opinion, but he should take it into consideration. Bolton, Wolfowitz, Meirs; these appointments demonstrate such an utter lack of regard for the opinions of those involved and the public at large that it almost seems as though GWB is determined to anger everyone. Well, mission accomplished in my particular case.
I love George Will’s take on this one: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html
Davis, I spend ALL of my time around liberals and European socialists except when I go to Church. All of my neighbors are liberals. I am the token conservativee just about everywhere I go. And I have exactly the opposite reaction. I quietly and purposefully put forward the viewpoint that GWB has made his share of mistakes but he keeps on being proven correct. Yes, there have been mistakes in Iraq, but there were thousands more in every other war. Yes, his Katrina response was bad, but the cynical attempt to pin everything on Bush was a thousand times more shameful (look at the backlash not happening against the MSM because of that). Bolton and Wolfowitz were “in-your-face” appointments, just what conservatives say they wanted (and, btw, excellent appointments who were cynically opposed for political reasons only). Again, I would not have chosen Miers, and there appear to be many more qualified people, but Bush has a way of being “misunderestimated.” I’m thinking this may be one of those times yet again.
Can I please ask that this forum not turn into a Bush-bashing (or Bush-supporting) forum? The relevant issue for now is Harriet Miers’ religious beliefs. I am guilty of thread-jacking my own thread by asking Davis’ opinion, but I rarely get to hear Davis’ opinion on anything but the babes around him, so I was curious as to his take.
I just got off the phone with a customer of mine here in Dallas. He worked for 10 years with HM at her law firm and is very conservative (hint: he represented Paula Jones and was at the deposing of Clinton) he also is friends with her family here in Dallas
He says she is a very evangelical Christian and will seek to interpet the law and not make law. He used the words Strict Constructionist in our conversation.
Just more info. Its still a weak pick but I am a little more confident in her.
The most interesting thing to me about Miers’ religion is that she is a member of a restorationist church. Restorationist churches stem from the Churches of Christ, which is the Campbellite movement. Many know that Sydney Rigdon was a Campbellite preacher before joining the Church and bringing many of his Campbellite followers with him. Also of interest is that the Campbellite tradition is similar to Mormonism except in the important respect that it dismisses the revelatory for the rational. While, I don’t know where Miers’ specific church falls down within the Campbellite tradition and the Campbellite tradition has continued to diverge from Mormonism in similarity and has become far more simialr to fundamentalist movements, I find the tie interesting nonetheless.
Geoff B.,
I don’t feel that there is any necessary linkage between traditional Christian belief and proper interpretation of the Constitution. There are overlaps, on abortion, gay marriage, etc., but then there’s federalism, separation of powers, the commerce clause, substantive due process, and so on.
Geoff B:
Ditto.
Further, I find it scary that _any_ religion would be used as the paradigm by which the Constitution is interpreted, Christian or otherwise. If you were an elected politician, your remarks would currently be fodder for those who believe that Bush is turning American into the Taliban.
I’m not at all convinced Senators need Bush. At this point, given his spending, his failures in Iraq and Katrina, and now this along with his low approval ratings I think he is a hindrance. This is quite unlike the last midterm elections. It is far more akin to some of Clinton’s mid term elections when Republicans made great gains. I fully expect Republicans to lose a lot of seats. And given the way they’ve been governing they pretty well deserve to lose them.
The issue shouldn’t be what Mier thinks of abortion. It shouldn’t even be about some vague sense of being a strict constructionist. (Although that is important) It should be about her experience, mind and understanding of Constitutional Law. If you are going to get someone with her views, at least get someone with a track record so we can trust it. (Remember Souter?) Why should we assume she’ll be a competent judge?
If I were a Republican congressman or Senator up for re-election next fall, I’d be thinking very hard about how I’m positioning myself. I think the grass roots has had it. The Republican party has become too much of what the Democrats were like in the early 90’s when the Republican Revolution took Congress.
Whoops, just read your comments Geoff. Sorry. I’ll drop my Bush bashing. I tend to agree that most attacks on him from the left are far overblown. But I think many from the right aren’t.
Having said that though, I tend to agree that I don’t see what religion has to do with it all, beyond Evangelicals and conservative Christians being riled up in the last election about gay marriage and abortion. I’m still not sure how she feels about the former, although she appears to feel strongly about the latter – perhaps enough to rile Democrats up far more than they were with Roberts. (Who was such as strong nomination that the really couldn’t react *that* strongly)
What’s wrong with Jimmy Carter?
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.”
Regardless of what he did or didn’t do in the White House, he is at least living his religion in this sense.
Bush clearly made this pick out of weakness.
Do not “misunderestimate” (ha ha good one Bell) the influence that religion plays in modern politics and by extension to judges. Judges are human too like the rest of us. I agree that religion probably plays a small role on things like federalism or the commerce clause but it plays a huge role in abortion or SSM. That is what the fuss is really all about. Look at the exit polls from 2004 if you do not believe me. I saw the exit poll numbers on LDS. It was 80% one way similar to the white evangelical numbers.
Best way to tell how a individual votes per the exit polls in the largest demographic in the US electorate: (no special order)
marital status including age at marriage
child rearing status
church attendance
Russ, among the things wrong with Jimmy Carter: Nicaragua. Afghanistan. Iran. Inflation. Unemployment. Stagflation. Increase in Soviet and Chinese threat. Panama Canal. I’m old enough to have lived through that era, which was easily the worst presidency of the last 80 years (certainly the worst since Hoover — and worse than Nixon in my opinion, but many others will disagree). And, yes, I do think he is a good Christian and probably a good man. But he was a horrible, horrible president. I hope Harriet Miers is not that type of evangelical.
Beyond that, there is significant evidence that Jimmy Carter is an anti-semite and certainly violently anti-Israeli. And his pursuit of human rights is highly selective. If you are oppressed by a right-wing dictator, Carter will support you. But if you are equally oppressed by Castro, Ortega, Chavez or Saddam Hussein, then you’re just out of luck. Just a year ago, he sold millions of Venezuelans up the river when he certified the results of one of the most corrupt elections in Latin American history and allowed Chavez to continue his reign of terror in Venezuela.
Read here for more.
I think you could make a case that Carter’s behavior as an ex-president sometimes borders on treason.
Geoff,
you dont seem to have much of an opinion about this Carter guy do you?
😛
AJ
Yeah, my rhetoric was pretty strong. I’d probably forget about Carter if he hadn’t been such a bad ex-president as well as president.
Geoff,
May I suggest that if Bush bashing is inappropriate on this thread, perhaps Carter bashing (“treason”, “anti-Semite”) should be inappropriate as well? While I voted for Reagan over Carter, I do not agree with your assessment of Carter’s presidency, nor his personal characteristics. I will also tell you that my feelings about Bush are probably as strong as yours apparently are about Carter.
DavidH, you make a valid point. I’ll shut up now. So, what do we think about Harriet Miers’ outing as an evangelical?
My favorite part of the whole diatribe is how his source material appears to be the National Review. Now there’s an impartial news gatherer….
I think Miers’ (or any other Supreme Court nominee’s) religious preference/practice is irrelevant in terms of qualification to the high court. Religious reference is nothing more than a code word for a certain hoped for judicial philophosy and way of ruling. Quite frankly I find this nomination physically revolting. George Will, hardly a liberal lion opined today in the Washington Post:
What should be important is the legal stature, background and experience a nominee brings to the high court. Check out the biographies of the current Supreme Court justices on the Court’s website here. Chief Justice Roberts’ resume is found here.
With the exception of Justice Thomas (another nominee from another Bush) the remainder of the justices have exceptional resumes and backgrounds. The nomination process has deteriorated to a process whereby the President, at least in the case, sends up at best a marginally qualified candidate with no paper trail, no background commensurate with the position, in the hope the Senate will rubber stamp his choice. To suggest she is qualified because of some religious affiliation, is itself sacrilegious. Mr. Bush is supposedly a “conservative” president. Fine! He won the election, and has a right to nominate a conservative justice to the Court. I say let him nominate one qualified enough to merit confirmation. Nominate one in the mold of Scalia, or Rehnquist, or Roberts–not Mires. Mr. Will is correct in his analysis. It may be very important that she not be confirmed.
Jeff B’s comment about Harriet Miers’ religious conversion is not necesarilly a positive when you conside the evangelical’s myopic view of other religions. Especially onerous is thier “We love the people but hate their religion” pap. That is not to say that there is not some common ground between us. But it is far from a slam dunk for Mormon’s, Catholics, SDA’s, Jews, Jehova’s Witnesses and a laundry list of others. Their list of other denominations has more in the “We hate” column than in the “We like” column. I would much rather have a hard core Catholic or Jew than an intolerant evangelical on the bench. And using Jimmy Carter as a positive is a diffent conversation altogether.
I’m virtually biting my tongue, but because I don’t want to participate in threadjack I won’t come to the defense of the best ex-president of my lifetime.
I have mixed thoughts about Miers. I’m not sure what bearing her religious faith will have; I certainly hope it will lead her to approach her job with integrity and compassion. Beyond that, it’s hard to say. Certainly it is possible (for example) to believe that a certain behavior is sinful yet also believe its practice is constitutionally protected.
And here’s my rant for the day: I’m tired of hearing everyone evaluate a judge based almost solely on his/her views on abortion. It’s an important issue, but it’s far from the only one. I, just to pick one example, would like to know what a justice would think about the constitutional issues raised by the so-called war on terror. (And, I must confess, in this particular issue I’d have to end up agreeing with Scalia, who has strongly opposed the Bush policy of detaining “unlawful combatants” without trial.) And in the total scheme of things, it’s probably more important to know what a justice thinks about mundane topics such as federal/state relations.
I think she’ll probably be confirmed, unless there is something substantial (which I think is unlikely) to allegations that she helped cover up Bush family misdeeds.