Which Way Do You Want It?

Let me start by prefacing this post: I don’t like E.J. Dionne. He is, in my humble opinion, an incompetent boob, at best. But every so often (there must have been a "blue moon" yesterday when he penned this) he has a teeny-tiny bit of wisdom. Below are the opening paragraphs of his column in today’s WaPo. (Hat-Tip: Captain's Quarters)

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005579.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601584_pf.html

Now we know: President Bush's supporters are prepared to be thoroughly hypocritical when it comes to religion. They'll play religion up or down, whichever helps them most in a political fight.

Shortly after Bush named John Roberts to the Supreme Court, a few Democrats, including Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), suggested that the nominee might reasonably be questioned about the impact of his religious faith on his decisions as a justice.

Durbin had his head taken off. "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 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 .

Marvin Olasky, a conservative Christian writer who has been a strong Bush supporter, explained his sympathy for Miers. "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."

I’ll let the opening paragraph slide, as that is how I see this fight shaping up, as well. TOO MUCH emphasis is being put on her faith, and not just by the MSM. Olasky, Dr. James Dobson, and many others—the president included—have testified to her strong faith. That’s all well and good, but it has no merit on this nominee. Article VI, Section 3 of the US Constitution is explicitly clear on this issue.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several 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."

In short, her faith can’t be used as a crutch in the hearings, and it does seem extremely hypocritical of her supporters to continue to throw this in our faces. Hey, I’m Catholic, and I’m firm in my beliefs, but that doesn’t qualify me to sit on the high court. My qualifications lie in my judicial philosophy, and my ability to interpret the Constitution properly. As Mr. Dionne points out perfectly, it was Chief Justice Roberts’ Catholic leanings than many of the Democrats picked up on, and began to demonize long before the hearings even started. The MSM went so far as to dig up his wife’s participation in a pro-life group. Again, no relevance to Roberts, but demonization nonetheless.

We can’t have our cake and eat it too. Either we are going to omit the inclusion of religious faith as a qualification—as it is dictated under Article VI—or we’re going to violate the Constitution, and allow one’s faith to come into question, and possibly hostile assault. It has always been the practice that a nominee wouldn’t be questioned on their faith. This was a private issue, and not one that the senators should know about. It’s time that the White House, and the supporters of Miers drop this argument. Show me something substantive about her, or be silent until the hearings start.

And I have one last thing to add...

It seems that those supporting Miers are coming under an increasing assault by those opposed to her. This must end. We can’t tear ourselves apart over one nominee. To give an example, I cite Hugh Hewitt:

"Shill," "toady," "kool-aid drinker," and --yes-- W's "Joe Conason" --the unkindest cut of all-- have all been attributed to me by colleagues on the center-right. Actually, there are even worse descriptions, but I maintain a PG blog. Fine, all around. Let fly, friends, you owe me nothing except your candid opinions. But you might owe the president more.

Hugh Hewitt has done more to propel the blogosphere than any other person in the nation. He lives it, breathes it, and sleeps it. He knows the power bloggers possess. WE have made our mark on the map as many a liberal can attest to. And many more in the media can vouch for it too? (Anyone seen Eason Jordan or Jayson Blair, lately?) So, in my opinion, we do owe Hugh quite a bit. And for that I will state the following, clearly and concisely.

YES, I’m sure a few people in favor of Miers are in favor of her simply because they support the president, and she’s his choice. But, people like Hugh Hewitt aren’t shills. On the contrary, I’m sure if he found something particularly damning against Harriet Miers—something egregious—he’d bring it to people’s attentions, and reevaluate his stance. As of yet, that hasn’t happened.

It is clear that the base of the party is divided over Miers. I’m sure it’s not as bad as many believe. Most are sitting on the fence, unwilling to render a decision until the hearings are over. While people like myself, Capt. Ed, and the guys at PowerLine have rendered a preliminary decision, we too wait for the hearings. And despite our differences, we still remain friends, colleagues, and fellow conservatives that carry on the fight—day in and day out—against the Left in this country. This fight is not going to change that. In fact, this fight might just strengthen that bond because we can agree to disagree, and move on.

We trust one another because we give each other honest opinions, and honest criticism, and we receive it right back. There’s no need for this name-calling by either side. Frustration may set in, but before one goes to throw out an insult like "shill" or "toady" or "kool-aid drinker," they had better take a look at themselves. We’ve all imbibed the kool-aid at least once in our lives.

But on this issue, there is sound, reasoned, logical arguments on both sides. Hugh’s side says "trust the president; you owe him that much." True. The president is the commander-in-chief of the nation, and it’s our duty as citizens to support the man whether we like him or not. (I detested Clinton, and I was one of only a few voices NOT calling for his impeachment. Did he break the law? Yes. Were we going to be able to remove him? Hell no, and I knew it.) Those that are on my side of the argument point to numerous reports showing her inability to make decisions, and questions her qualifications to be a good White House counsel. We point to affiliations in the recent past where she met with activists that are anything but conservative.

She has a long, laundry list of accomplishments, and that’s commendable. But those accomplishments might look good on a resume when one is running for office. They really have nothing to contribute to being a Supreme Court jurist.

But enough of the internal mud-slinging. It’s not doing us any good, and the animosity it might create could prove to be the breach in the party that will allow the Democrats to regain seats in the House, possibly retake the Senate, and allow someone like Hillary to be elected president. The base doesn’t need this right now. Stand tall, hold the line, and remember that this fight is far from over. This is not the time for factional in-fighting.

Publius II