Here's What's Left: Strict Constructionist?

« Strict Constructionist | Main | Keep digging »

October 07, 2005

Strict Constructionist?

E.J. Dionne's column, excellent as usual, calls the right-wing on their hypocrisy in regard to Harriet Miers' religious beliefs:

"We have no religious tests for public office in this country," thundered Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), insisting that any inquiry about a potential judge's [John Roberts, in this case]religious views was "offensive." Fidelis, a conservative Catholic group, declared that "Roberts' religious faith and how he lives that faith as an individual has no bearing and no place in the confirmation process."

But now that Harriet Miers, Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, is in trouble with conservatives, her religious faith and how she lives that faith are becoming central to the case being made for her by the administration and its supporters. Miers has almost no public record. Don't worry, the administration's allies are telling their friends on the right, she's an evangelical Christian .[...]

"Maybe it's the judicial implications of her evangelical faith, unseen on the court in recent decades," Olasky wrote on his blog. "Friends who know Miers well testify to her internal compass that includes a needle pointed toward Christ."[...]

iPhone iPad Review | Cheap Hotels Travel | Article SEO Writers |Retirement Planning

Let's be clear: It is pro-administration conservatives, not those terrible liberals, who are making an issue of Miers's evangelical faith. Liberals are not opposing Miers because she is an evangelical. Conservatives are telling their friends to support Miers because she is an evangelical.

Which, of course, is unarguably hypocritical. But it's funny that Dionne doesn't make the more obvious point here. It's not only that republicans have said the stuff about the religious test and are now using religion to gain support. It's that republicans have always been very clear about what they think judges are supposed to do: they think judges should strictly interpret the law and the Constitution, and that's it.

Even when Bush announced Miers, he said that she "will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench." Bush said of some judges whose nominations were being held up that "They will strictly and faithfully interpret the law. They won't use the bench from which to legislate." What about foreign law? Kevin Fobbs tells us:

The Supreme Court may not continue to be the supreme court of the land if the judicial philosophy of Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer of using foreign law rulings in adjudicating American cases is permitted to become standard practice by the justices.

Couldn't be clearer. Their position might be overstated, simplistic, and full of straw men, but it's clear: judges can't use their personal preferences, or even the laws of another country, to make their decisions. They interpret the law, plain and simple.

So why, then, does it matter that Harriet Miers' heart is pointed to Christ? Why does it matter her friend Nathan Hecht is being put on TV to tell us that in the 70s she sought a "deeper commitment to faith"? How does any of this tell us whether she'll interpret the Constitution and the law rather than legislating from the bench?

I assume, then, ahem, that this will be the first question out the mouths of conservatives during her confirmation hearing: Ms. Miers, as you know, your job as a Supreme Court justice is to faithfully interpret the law. Given how well publicized it is, then, how can we be sure that your Christian faith will not get in the way of this?

-- Michael

Posted on October 07, 2005 at 07:53 PM | Permalink

Comments

So, we are not to take into account foreign laws... except that of the Israelites. Maybe the fix to our problem is to establish a small country whose sole doctrine is based on the 10 commandments. Then we in the US will not be permitted by the right, to consider those commandments when making any decisions. It would also seem strange to hang another country's law on the walls of our courthouses...

What say you?

~Thadeus

Posted by: Thadeus | October 10, 2005 at 07:03 AM

It seems to me that to fight terrorism effectively. We need to rethink our strategy. The way I understand it, the terrorist has a network of cells and training camp intersperse throughout many countries. They appear to be capable of arranging these terrorist attacks in any country by communicating with these cells and training camps. They are extremely active in Iraq because President Brush opened the door to them by starting the Iraqi war.

So, my idea would be cut off the supply by destroying their training camps throughout the world. To do this we must organize and convince a network of countries to work together as one unit to succeed in wining the war on terrorism. Pride cometh before a fall. I think all participating countries if possible should work together to seek and find the terrorist training camps and destroy them. As a result, this should cut off the human supply to the battle field which could be a terrorist attack in any country at any given time. In time this should prevent a large number of American troops, our Allied troops, Iraqi troops, and innocent people from being murdered. This also should act as a deterrent for terrorist to join these training camp because they will soon get the message that they will probably be unsuccessful in completing their sick mission.

That will be a very tough job to accomplish because President Brush has escalated the division of congress, the division of our country, and we lost respect and co-operation of many other countries. In addition, on 10/06/05 the far right republicans succeeded in passing the Energy bill by holding a five minute vote open for 45 minutes and twisting the arms of several moderate Republicans to change their votes. My question is what tactics did they use to change several moderate republicans’ votes? They should have the free will to vote any way they like. This is a democracy, those kinds of tactics should be against the law and should not be permitted.

Yes we do need a strong and decisive President. But we also need a wise President, one that truly loves our country. He’s not ignorant, He certainly knows that his defense policies and his economical policies are failing. In fact, they are destroying our country. The wise thing for him to do is to seek counsel, admit that he has made serious errors, and correct his course before it’s to late. The American People will understand the truth but they will not put up with these lies much longer. Otherwise he should resign, or the Democrats should immediately start impeachment proceedings.

Posted by: Bob | October 13, 2005 at 12:39 AM