Although I want to be able to trust President Bush’s judgement in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, I am experiencing increasing difficulty in supporting his decision. Statements that have been made about her being an evangelical Christian have done nothing to ease my reservations. In fact, in some respects, the invoking of her faith as the main reason for supporting her nomination has caused me even greater anxiety about her capabilities as a Supreme Court justice than before.
Stephen Crampton of the American Family Association apparently shares some of the same reservations and clearly articulates the problem with the nomination and the methods being used to defend Miers’ selection (hat tip: Best of the Web):
Merely being an evangelical Christian does not automatically qualify one for any position. Specific knowledge and skills are required for almost any job, and sitting on the highest court in the land is not just any job. Dr. Dobsonâ€™s endorsement, while admittedly weighty, was predicated upon the private assurances of Ms. Miersâ€™ friends and colleagues, and her church affiliation. While these may be important factors, they do not provide assurance that she possesses the necessary skills and knowledge for the job, and they do not settle for most of us the question of her judicial philosophy.
The fact that Ms. Miers is an evangelical Christian is irrelevant to the issue at hand: whether she is qualified to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. In fact, the first question that should have been asked is whether she is the best candidate available. Just because someone professes the same faith as I do doesn’t make him or her the right person for the job especially one as important as this one.