Doc, you raise some interesting questions. The whole litmus test charade is code for "she's a religious zealot, just like me."
Just two questions should help us understand the W: Was it God that you were speaking to that gives you regular guidance? 2) How do you know it's not the Devil instead?
On the Miers situation, the message from Scott McClellan was that religion was not talked about - why? Becuase they already know and understand her position. They don't have to perform any litmus test (which is against the law when appointing judges, btw). Moreover, they were actually trying to pull a fast one on us by suggesting that people "of faith" don't let their faith influence their judgement or impair their ability to make fair legal decisions. But isn't that the point of being "of faith?"
That really is a double edged sword for the W, Rove and Co. Trying to have your cake and eat it too, they suggest that faith is good, but it doesn't affect judgement. So, why would they be on this bender to support "faith based organizations?"
The second edge is that if Miers is going to make decisions based on the law, then the law is that Roe won in Roe V. Wade. That means she should be in the business of supporting that law. Moreover, if she decides otherwise, she will be come that ever so demonized "Activist."
This fight is going to be ugly, and the repubs should be pulling out all the stops to kill her nomination as well as prove that they are distancing themselves from the W, Rove and Co, who are really falling down on the job in a big way.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Activist Judges and the Double Edged Sword the W, Rove and Co are About to Fall On
Rifling through my blog roll, I found Doc Forbush had a nice post raising interesting questions about the Miers nomination. Here's my response that identifies the double edged sword that the W, Rove and Co are about to commit national seppuku with: