October 11, 2005
THIS MUST BE CHRISTOPHER’S DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL
Miers and Brimstone (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, October 10th, 2005)
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the man who is now our chief justice. I pointed to unrebutted evidence that, in answer to a direct question from a fellow Catholic (Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill.), Roberts had replied that in the case of a conflict between the law and the teaching of the Vatican, he would recuse himself. Since obviously it is impossible to nominate, let alone confirm, anyone who does not answer that the law and the Constitution should control in all cases, I proposed that Roberts ought to be asked the question again and in public. For this, I got exactly what I expected: allegations of anti-Catholic bigotry from the fideists at National Review and then (not just for my benefit) a full-page ad or two in the press, saying that anyone who dared raise such a question would be accused of applying … "a religious test." Roberts got suavely through his hearings without the inconvenience of the question, had a large Bible with illuminated crucifix in the family photo-op with the president, and now joins his three fellow Catholics on the court.Of the nomination of Harriet Miers, by contrast, it can be said that only her religion has been considered by her conservative fans to be worth mentioning. What else is there to say, in any case, about a middling bureaucrat and yes-woman than that she attends some mediocre place of worship? One could happily make a case that more random civilians, and fewer f--king lawyers, should be on the court. But the only other thing to say about Miers is that she is a f--king lawyer. Her own opinion of herself is somewhat higher: She does not attribute her presence among us to the laws of biology but chooses to regard herself as having a personal and unmediated relationship with the alleged Jesus of Nazareth, who is further alleged to be the son of God. Such modesty! On this basis, the president and his people have felt able to issue assurances of her OK-ness. So, as far as I can determine, she was set, and has passed, a religious test: that of being an "Evangelical" Christian.
The cowardice of the Democrats in this respect is absolutely breathtaking. Having determined that they, too, must move to faith-based high ground (and having chosen a Mormon as their Senate leader), they have refused to make the smallest squeak about this overt theocratic blackmail. Having swallowed Roberts by agreeing that religion should have nothing to do with it, they will swallow Miers even though it now seems that religion has everything to do with it.
That conversion we’ve all been eagerly anticipating is obviously just around the corner.
Posted by Peter Burnet at October 11, 2005 6:39 AMAs they pointed out in the Corner, "unrebutted" is a strange word to use for a supposed conversation that has been denied by all the participants.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 11, 2005 8:14 AMIn the mean time, to employ words Orrin used in another context, Hitchens remains a servant of evil.
Posted by: Paul Cella at October 11, 2005 9:34 AMWell, can anyone answer Hitchen's question? What are her qualifications, besides being an evangelical Christian? And why is being an evangelical Christian, in and of itself, a qualification for the Supreme Court?
The Religious Right made this mistake when they elected Jimmy Carter. Religious piety tells you nothing about a person's qualifications for office.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 11, 2005 10:09 AMThat's the kind of talk we want to hear. Come into the spider's parlor, grab the tar-baby, roll forward into the killing-zone.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 11, 2005 10:27 AMWho is the spider, and who is being killed? Non-evangelical Republicans? Neocons? Zeus worhippers? Great way to build a party!
Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 11, 2005 11:05 AMSo when he joins an Orthodox synagogue...
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at October 11, 2005 1:05 PMRobert:
The only qualifications necessary are to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. Miers already has the former and is likely to get the latter. I agree that she is a disappointing nominee and that the appeal to her religious beliefs is a dangerous argument.
I was dismayed by Hitchens' amateur prose in this article -- it was not up to his normal standards, and more like something I would expect to find at DU or dKos.
Posted by: jd watson
at October 11, 2005 1:16 PM
He's so not converting.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at October 11, 2005 3:56 PM