I’m trying to figure out what this can possibly mean:
The idea that there is inconsistency in preventing attacks on a nominee because of his or her religious beliefs and praising and finding value in a person’s commitment to religious beliefs is not merely absurd, it is transparently a stupid argument, and one that newspapers must report as such. Bush’s appreciation of Miers religious convictions as a “part” of her character and thus her qualification for office is simply not a religious test, whereas refusing Catholic nominees confirmation for fear their “deeply held beliefs” will inhibit their judging is.
I think this means that someone’s religious faith can be used as a qualification for public office but not as a disqualification. Heads you lose; tails we win. Here’s what Bush said:
“People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers’ background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers’ life is her religion.”
I don’t think there’s much doubt from the president’s own words that Miers’ religious faith was one reason she was selected by Bush for the Supreme Court. If faith is now an explicit, publicly stated criterion for public office, then it must be equally legitimate for people to oppose the nomination entirely on religious grounds. If Miers’ evangelicalism is one of Bush’s criteria, then why should Catholics not use it against her? Or Muslims? Or atheists? The milque-toast questioning about Roberts’ faith and its possible effect on his rulings is, on this basis, legitimate. At the very least, it is now arguably legitimate – not “transparently stupid.” For the record, I think someone’s religious faith should be completely irrelevant to a nomination to SCOTUS. Hewitt doesn’t. But then I don’t believe in fusing religion and politics. Hewitt does. As long as it’s his religion.
The Dish 