HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Remember all that talk about the filibuster as an attack on people of faith? Or how opposition to a person of "faith" was an attack on Christians everywhere? Remember how a nominee's faith was supposed to be off limits? Or what about the idea that we shouldn't ask nominees their opinions about cases that might one day come before the Court? Or that we should never ask about their ideology?

Right. Apparently I missed the memo that this time around everything's changed:

President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation. "People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "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."

Hmmm.... That's interesting:

Some conservative leaders say the emphasis on Miers' religion is patronizing. They note that two months ago during the confirmation process for Chief Justice John Roberts, the administration said Roberts' Roman Catholic faith should not be a factor in his confirmation. "The constant bringing up of her faith is inappropriate," says Jan LaRue, chief counsel at Concerned Women for America, who describes herself as an evangelical Christian and wants more detail on Miers' views of constitutional law. "No one's giving us any real information about her. We're in an echo chamber."

An echo chamber? Wow. Welcome to our world, so glad you could join us.

But seriously... this "you will know a potential Justice by their faith and faith alone" thing is insane. Could someone please explain to me what a person's religious faith has to do with their ability to interpret secular law? What role it could possibly play in the interpretation of a secular constitution?

And while I'm asking questions, isn't it always the conservatives who say that the separation of church and state should be interpreted to neither hinder nor favor religion? That it should be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage? Because if that's the proper interpretation of the amendment, shouldn't it also apply to the people chosen to make that interpretation?

And last but not least... Do these people have ANY principles they won't abandon on a moment's notice?

Rick Shenkman is right: the GOP has already Borked their own nominee. No matter how this nomination turns out, the rules of the nomination game have forever changed.

And just how bad is it for Bush and his best buddy? The neo-con's neo-con, David Frum, has started an online petition drive to gather signatures in opposition to the nomination. That's right - Frum is pulling a MoveOn on the Prez. Ouch.

UPDATE: Have you seen this? And if so, could you please explain to me what Bush meant when he added the following PS to his memo to Miers: "No more public scatology." And no, this isn't a joke. Its very, very real.

--------