Attytood has an interesting look into what could be considered crimes
committed by George Bush's decision to appoint Harriet Miers, and his use of her
religious beliefs in making that decision.
The President's day: One high crime and two misdemeanors Since Attytood
is now officially a "liberal journalist" according to Slate.com, we feel
it's our duty to report that many on the farther left have been agitating in
recent days for the impeachment of President Bush, primarily on the grounds
of deliberately lying to the American people about Iraq. But why stop there.
Just today alone, Bush committed at least one "high crime" and two
"misdemeanors," by our casual tally.Let's review:
The act: 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. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."Misdemeanor No. 1: In using religion as a key basis for offering Miers a
job, the president would appear to have violated the spirit, if not the
letter, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, Title VII of the law "prohibits
employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin."Misdemeanor No. 2: More specifically, one could make the case that Bush's
actions are also in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which
specifically covers federal employees. According to the same EEOC primer:
"The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel
actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for
employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age
or disability."High crime: As you might expect, the "high crime" here is more serious,
and is also the area where it's hardest to argue that the president did not
cross the line. We are referring to Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S.
Constitution, which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as
a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."Do you honestly believe that Harriet Miers -- with all her other
qualifications exactly the same -- would have been nominated to the Supreme
Court if she had been Jewish, or an atheist, or Muslim? Of course not,
because the president and Karl Rove, or Andy Card, or whoever's really
running things these days, knew that such a choice would not pass muster
with the radical clerics who sit on "the board of directors" of Bushco.A mid-level bureaucrat who treated a job vacancy in this manner would
surely be fired. Shouldn't we hold the president of the United States to an
even higher standard?George W. Bush has an easy choice now. He can withdraw Miers' nomination.
Or he can be impeached.
That point right there is one of great interest. President Bush, by publicly
admitting her religion had something to do with her appointment, exhibited total
disregard to our constitution. This is no shocker, as Bush has exhibited the
same disregard in the past - specifically with the Iraq War.
The fact that Bush did mention her religion as being an added bonus for the
nomination now puts the same issue on the table during confirmation hearings.
Bush actually opened up a can of worms by doing this and I seriously believe he
didn't even realize it. His main concern for getting the confirmation through
does not lie in the hands of Democrats, but rather in the hands of his own
party.
There seems to be a large number of religious people in this country who
still believe in the necessity of the separation of church and state. Some even
came out publicly and endorsed the clause while speaking out against Governor
Rick Perry's now infamous signing of a law inside a church. The ones who seem to
be mostly in support of the separation are the true evangelicals. I am not
talking about the crazies like Pat Robertson, who appears more and more to be
using his religion as a tool for political power. I am talking about the true
evangelicals out that, the ones that use the bible as a guidance through life
and not just certain passages from it.
As matter of fact, the evangelicals I speak of are the same ones that Harriet
Miers and her church broke away from. The following was reported by the
Associated Press yesterday:
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is among a group of
congregants of a Dallas evangelical church who recently broke away due to
differences over church rules and worship styles.ADVERTISEMENT [Blocked Ads] The group of about 200, led by former Valley
View Christian Church pastor Ron Key, formed their own church about a month
ago and have been meeting on Sundays at a hotel in Dallas.Miers has worshipped as a Catholic and attended Episcopalian and
Presbyterian services, according to Judge Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme
Court, who has dated Miers. She has been a congregant at Valley View for
some 25 years and in 1979 was baptized by full immersion, consistent with
the church's beliefs.
View full article
here
via
Yahoo.
One of the key issues during the confirmation could be answered in the very
action of her and her fellow congregants. The new church they formed has a
strong view on abortion. They oppose it and believe life begins at conception.
Now Miers does not attend the church regularly, I mean that would involve
traveling from Washington to Dallas every week. Currently she St. Johns
Episcopal, which is located right across the street from the White House. The
fact though that they were willing to break off from their church in Dallas and
start their own church for specific reasons, including abortion, should send an
alarming message about her views on Roe -v- Wade to the people.
The overall fact still remains. Bush appointed someone to the highest court
in the land who has never sat on a bench. It is the same as appointing a guy who
ran horse shows to head up the nation's disaster agency - it just does not work.
It is also a slap in the face to fellow conservatives who have been grooming a
number of potential justice candidates over the past decades in the Federalist
Society.
Comments
Don't lose sight of the big picture here. Now we see the real danger to which the President's political calculations concerning Ms. Miers has opened the door. The President tried to signal the religious right that Ms. Miers can be trusted to enact her evangelical Christian beliefs into law thru Supreme Court decisions, such as outlawing abortion. But in doing so, Mr. Bush also revealed that he and his Administration are either profoundly ignorant or must instead have a most cynical and even more profound contempt for the US Constitution itself. Perhaps thru pressured political miscalcuation, Mr. Bush now has brought the most important question about his Supreme Court nominees to the foreground. Perhaps now it will be possible to show to all the American people just what this Republican, so-called "conservative" majority is all about: the cynical exploitation of those with religious beliefs who wish to see those beliefs imposed thru law on all Americans. The religious right now is beginning to sense the duplicity here: the Republican insiders and leaders don't want their new Supreme Court appointees actually to succeed in establishing in law religious beliefs about abortion or any other hot button social issue -- to do that would take the issue away. With abortion outlawed, who would carry the signs and march for the conservative cause? But if Mr. Bush's nominees act as independent judges, as they should, and fail to outlaw abortion, why then Republicans can still carry on as though they were frustrated by those shadowy "liberal" elites in the courts. Without the abortion issue, the army of the faithful might turn to other concerns and away from marching together with Republicans. These faithful might even turn to issues like economic justice for themselves as middle class people as well as America's deteriorating infrastructure at the hands of these cynical modern day robber barons. They might awaken to the massive growth in government under these so-called "conservatives" while government's competence and efficiency in providing for the public interest has plummeted on their watch. What every American needs to understand is that deciding questions like abortion or any other issue before the US Supreme Court by establishing in law one's religious beliefs -- beliefs to be imposed on everyone -- is unconstitutional on its face. Thomas Jefferson could not have been more clear on this. The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's religion free of government interference. The establishment clause requires the separation of church and state. So, it doesn't matter what church Ms. Miers goes to -- if she can't leave her religion out of her judicial decision making, then she can't be qualified to be a US Supreme Court Justice. That is the issue that now must come out during confirmation hearings. That is the question I most want to hear asked: is it appropriate, or even constitutional to base Supreme Court decisions on religious beliefs?
Post new comment