"People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush said in response to a reporter's question at an Oval Office appearance with Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski. "They want to know Harriet Miers's background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion."
The issue was stoked by James C. Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, who recounted on a radio show taped Tuesday and aired yesterday that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove raised religion in a private conversation to assure him of Miers's conservative bona fides. According to Dobson, Rove told him two days before Bush announced the nomination "that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian [and] that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life."
-The Washington Post
"Jay Sekulow, counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, said on Pat Robertson's television show that the Miers nomination was 'a big opportunity for those of us who have a conviction, that share an evangelical faith in Christianity, to see someone with our positions put on the court.'"
-E. J. Dionne Jr.
“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
--United States Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3
One thing I can't stand is hypocrisy, especially within Christian circles.
I hear many Christians advocating a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution, a view advocated by Robert Bork that seeks to read the Constitution as a static document and therefore "limit judicial interpretation to the meanings of the actual words and phrases used in law, and not on other sources or inferences" (Wikipedia). Strict Constructionists believe that since the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy, recent Supreme Court decisions that have established the right to privacy as a basic human right (based on the 9th Amendment and amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self- incrimination limit) are fallacious. The Court's establishment of the right to privacy has resulted in several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including those dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (Roe v. Wade).
So, here's the hypocricy: Why is it that the White House and James Dobson, two advocates of strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, are so willing to NOT strictly interpret the 6th Article of the Consitution ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States")?