There shock and awe in that Evangelicals actually believe that Bush is serving their interests.

Let's not forget that Clarence Thomas (now St. Clarence, at least in the eyes of some of the loudest shriekers this past week) was named to the "Black Seat" to replace Thurgood Marshall (himself no intellectual heavyweight) because he was the best "conservative black" Bush the Elder's administration claimed it could find.

Yes, some of us do make bones about quota-like arguments for "women's seats," etc., because we think that's of little importance next to other things. The shock in Miers' case is that she seems to have few qualifications other than her religion and closeness to Bush. I'd strongly prefer someone who had an originalist Constitutional philosophy, which is not at all necessarily the same thing as being "conservative," "evangelical" (e.g. Jimmy Carter), or "pro-life."

Certainly the thinnest resume in modern Court history.

There are Evangelicals to represent. There aren't originalists.

Raoul - Thomas has turned out to be the best conservative of any color anyone could have found.

Her Evangelicalism is the best part of Miers's background, and desperately needed on the Court.

Good clerks make up for all personal shortcomings.

As a known terrorists threat to the system of total evil what a the rights of all things on this good earth?..oh yes we have no real rights only the rights allowed to us, can you see what i am saying?

No. Are you drunk?

"No one makes any bones about the Jewish seats the Catholic seats, the black seats, the women's seats, but then there's shock and awe at an Evangelical seat?"

Perhaps that's because none of the other groups you have mentioned have quite the same totalitarian-minded tendencies as the Evangelicals, which, if looked at objectively, aren't really much different than the Taliban. So, there's very good reason to start fearing allowing religious extremists anywhere near any position of power.KB

"looked at objectively"

Good one.

Looked at objectively, you just about pee'd yourself in that last post, kb. How big a sissy does one have to be to be afraid of a sweet little old lady like Harriet Miers?

KB's statement is uncontroversial, because I say so.

kb--

Perhaps that's because none of the other groups you have mentioned have quite the same totalitarian-minded tendencies as the Evangelicals

You mean that the Papists don't bow down to Rome? Aren't you always screaming about Israel? Do you think Zimbabwe isn't totalitarian?

Have you ever read article VI, section 3, or are you too busy whining about your "rights"?

And before you ask, I'm an atheist myself. We have totalitarian tendencies of our own, you know.

Perhaps the neocons will run off and join Charlie Croker on the Zeus revival circuit?

Her Evangelicalism is the best part of Miers's background, and desperately needed on the Court.

Why? Have we forgotten which document is being interpreted by the court? It isn't the Bible.

I really couldn't give a rip if she is a born-again 7 day literalist or a Jewish Kabbalist, what is her judicial philosoply and what kind of legal mind does she have? This isn't just about making the right decisions on the court, but making the right decisions for the right reasons.

If Bush is making some kind of statement about "Zeus-worshippers" with this appointment, then he really is as dumb as people say he is. Whatever happened to the Judeo in Judeo-Christian? Are we now a Zeuseo-Christian nation?

Robert:

Yes, you don't care, but atheists don't get a seat.

kb:

As you say, the opposition to her is based on her religion. Who do you think wins that fight?

Not yet.

So, once Miers is confirmed, will her seat become the Evangelical seat? Will her replacement have to be an Evangelical? When will we get a Mormon seat?

The fact that a nation of Zeuseo-Christians need to parse out and jealously defend judicial seats according to a quota system just gives me more comfort that the dreaded Theocracy will never come to pass in America. We don't need a seat to defend our rights, we are the canary in the coal mine. If we go down, then the Zeus worshippers and marginal Christians know that they're next. We'll be kept around just to ensure everyone else that the ventilation system is working.

Harriet E. Miers Helped Bring Feminist Speakers to Southern Methodist

As it happens, I wrote to Terry Neal in response to the column oj quotes. Neal wrote back thanking me for my note and was very nice. I wrote in part:

If the strategy is to trumpet Miers' faith, that is tone deaf in the extreme. It is every bit as inappropriate to cite her faith as a positive qualification as it is for Democrats to attack her for it. And most Republicans understand that, whether they are lawyers or not.

Moreover, the President's word actually is worth quite a lot on the matter of whether she is in tune with him politically; I don't think that's what people mistrust.

The mistrust is of his capacity to discern whether she has an appropriate, articulable understanding of the proper role of a judge and the proper approach to the Constitution so that she stands on her own two feet at the Court and decides cases with intelligence, persuasiveness, and discernment.

Conservatives really are sincere in not wanting someone who decides cases based on their policy preferences. No one has a policy preference on every issue that will come before the Court over the course of 25 years, and such preferences are therefore unreliable as well as inappropriate criteria for nomination. That's why the choice of one of the 20+ revered male and female conservative superstars on the Courts of Appeals would have been so much better received, and why taking Harry Reid's suggestion of Miers is so stupid.

Conservatives want their very best to be seen on center stage. Luttig and McConnell, who are both as confirmable as Roberts and possibly less conservative, would have been met with rapturous applause by the conservative base. Miers, whatever her virtues, isn't in their league. This is a tremendous letdown, and lets liberals continue to spount nonsense about conservatives' anti-intellectualism (which couldn't be further from the truth — its just that we think liberal intellectuals are wrong about human nature, the virtues of capitalism, the purpose of the Constitution, etc. ad nauseum).

Miers hopefully will win her confirmation with a strong showing in her hearings, meaning that she demonstrates she has a deep knowledge of Constitutional law and a coherent approach to interpreting the Constitution. That has nothing to do with trumpeting her faith.

That said, I concede that her faith gives her a consistent worldview that does apply to all situations over the next 25 years, and that it is also a positive indicator of her approach to text -- that is, if she approaches the Bible as revelation, it would not be too bad if she approached the Constitution with similar deference to what is actually there, as opposed to what others might want to be there.

If those others are so qualified why aren't they White House Counsels or AGs?

Robert:

It'll be more than one, but the next goes to a Hispanic, most likely Alberto Gonzales or Mel Martinez.

If there was ever going to be an atheist seat it would have happened in the 70s, when no one much cared about the Constitution, but the moment passed.

rds: Well put.

OJ: Because most of those others have jobs as judges.

Papaya:

There are tens of thousands of judges--every Tom, Dick, and Harry is a judge. How many AGs, Solicitor Generals and White House Counsels have there ever been? They're the elite.

"There are tens of thousands of judges--every Tom, Dick, and Harry is a judge. How many AGs, Solicitor Generals and White House Counsels have there ever been? They're the elite."

Are you being serious?

That's like saying that since there have been a lot fewer Secretaries of Commerce, they are the elite compared to Fortune 500 CEOs.

OJ
Moments pass all the time. This moment will pass as well. You can't lock in the future.

What about the Mormom seat? Don't you think they should get one? And what do you see as the final allocation of quotas? How many Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, etc.?

if she approaches the Bible as revelation, it would not be too bad if she approached the Constitution with similar deference to what is actually there, as opposed to what others might want to be there

The problem is that even granting it is a revelation (the Bible), it is impossible to interpret it without injecting what you want to be there. Actually it probably makes it more likely that you will inject your own views into the interpretation, as it is the document that will determine the direction of your life. People don't give up control of their lives lightly.

The problem I have with this emphasis on a Biblical worldview is that she may read the Constitution with a view with what should be there from the Bible. As long as she can keep the two documents separate, she'll be fine by me.

Robert:

Yes, the Mormons are likely to get a seat eventually, Hispanics immediately, and Jews and blacks to lose theirs. It should be a representative institution.

Ali:

Yes, Secretary of Defense is probably the biggest job a CEO could aspire to, unless, like George W. Bush, he's got his sights set even higher.

The Constitution derives from the Bible. If you don't believe in the latter you can't understand the former and shouldn't be on the Court.

Conceivably, we may already have an atheist/agnostic on the Court, but they just keep silent about their views. Ginsburg may be one -- she worked for the ACLU and holds some political opinions commonly found among Rationalists. If she has expressed religious sentiment in the past I haven't heard about it.

I'm not accusing her of anything one way or the other, just noting that a person doesn't have to be outspoken about their views in order to qualify as a nonbeliever.