Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Absolutely The Dumbest "Meme"

Looks like some of the more extreme elements of the left side of the blogosphere today have decided to jump on President Bush's admission that he recognized that SCOTUS nominee Harriet "Oleson" Miers is a religious person. Here's what he said:

"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."
"Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion," Bush said during Oval Office comments with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski. "Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas." (
The full transcript is here.)

Shocking! Let's read that again: "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion." How can a 21st century leader think he can get away with saying such a thing? Well, he can't, if the denizens of the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground have anything to say about it. While the Kosian's description of the President's "outrageous comment" as "extremely troubling" is quite humorous, the best reaction comes from the DUmmies, who found that uttering this sentence was the commission of a high crime and two(!) misdemeanors:

"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." (This actually came from the blog "Attytood" -- I can't tell whether or not it was meant to be sarcastic.)

Interestingly, a good rebuttal to the "religious test" idiots comes from another DUer:

"The Civil Rights Acts are NOT criminal acts, they are Civil in Nature and are design to protect people from discrimination. If you want to use the Civil Rights acts you have to show how Miers was HARMED by Bush do to her religion. Obviously she was NOT harmed, she received the nomination."

I'm just glad that my good friend Rob didn't jump on this bandwagon.

Going deep...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that an Associate Justice like Miers might be 'informed' (the lawyerly, liberal jargon) by her religious faith is anti-PC.

Being informed by the socialist (or worse) philosophy of EU court precedents is considered PC, even by some current Justices. Problem is, these are icons who we expect to be PN (politically neutral), and CC (constitutionaly correct). Rob must be on sea duty.

10/12/2005 11:30 PM

Blogger ninme said...

That idiot whose name I can never remember (Conlaw prof and a liberal) was on Hugh Hewitt's show again this afternoon to talk about this horrid scandal, and he kept saying how unconstitutional it is to choose someone for a job because of her religion. Except I would have said it was unconstitutional of him (and by extension his senators) to vote against her because of her religion.

Of course that never occurred to anyone so the very strong feeling I have that I'm living in an alternate universe only intensified and I'm quickly being reduced to the state of gibbering idiocy. I wonder if they'd let me blog from the asylum?

10/12/2005 11:59 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

I wondering if someday when some Democrat President announces the nomination of the first Muslim cabinet member if we'll be able to bring this up...

10/13/2005 12:42 AM

Blogger geezernuke said...

Ninme, I like the way you think. I plan to quote your "unconstitutional to vote against because of religion".

10/13/2005 4:32 PM

Blogger ninme said...

Hey, spread it around, geezer-man.

It's just so insane. It's like you're watching a crowd of people through two-way glass talking about how things have changed since the sky turned green, and you want to but can't scream at them "It's blue! It's blue, you idiots!" But they can't hear you. And all this time you thought they knew what colour the sky is.

See the thing is, the president can choose her because he likes what kind of shoes she wears to work. The *senate* has to decide if she's right for the job, and if they say "well she's not because she wears crappy shoes," then fine. But if they say "Well she can't because she's religious," then that's illegal.

10/13/2005 10:35 PM

Blogger Robert Schumacher said...

I personally think the religious angle really has little bearing on the issue, either way. The GOP got all hot-and-bothered when religion was brought up in terms of some of Bush's lower court picks, but then flipped to using Miers' religion as a promotional tool. It's tacky, really.

I tend to agree with Dr. Bruce Prescott...and posted so. I certainly don't think Bush committed any crime in nominating Miers, even if it was for religious reasons. Those quoting hiring practices and employment laws are being silly...appointments by the President are not subjects for fair hiring legislation, they are his choice. Given that, I don't think Miers was a good choice, but not on the aspect of religion (as long as someone can rule to law and not let personal belief, be it religion or otherwise, interfere I have no problem with them). I think her fairly thin resume is going to make for a rocky confirmation.

There are those who oppose any Bush nominee, on the principle that they are Bush nominees. I'm not one of 'em. I'm not a fan of Bush (that much is obvious, no?), but I don't dig in my heels just because one is a nominee of his. In fact, I not only thought John Roberts was a good SCOTUS pick, I actually admired him for his handling of Ted Kennedy (who may have good ideas from time to time but who really tends to be a bit of a windbag). Heck, I actually think John Roberts will make a pretty good Chief Justice.

Harriet Miers doesn't seem to be a John Roberts, though...or a Sandra Day O'Connor. Or, for that matter, a judge...

Would I filibuster her? Probably not. But I probably wouldn't vote to confirm her, either. Bar association president and White House lawyer do not a Justice make...

10/14/2005 8:52 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home