"In my view, the Religion Clauses - the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Religious Test Clause, Art. VI, cl. 3, and the Equal Protection Clause as applied to religion - all speak with one voice on this point: absent the most unusual circumstances, one's religion ought not affect one's legal rights or duties or benefits. As I have previously noted, "the Establishment Clause is infringed when the government makes adherence to religion relevant to a person's standing in the political community." Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69 (1985) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment)."
My emphasis added. Now that Shrub is openly touting Harriet Miers' religious convictions as a qualification for her nomination to the SCOTUS, it's time for us to oppose the nomination based upon its unconstitutionality and the current rule of law.
Thank you, Sandra Day, et al.
V.
Worth noting as well, I think: During the Roberts confirmation hearings, Roberts continually avoided any, um, invitation to speak openly about his beliefs. He repeatedly stated that his personal belief system should bear no influence on his position as an adminstrator and interpreter of the law. I have to say, as much as Roberts gives me the willies, he's RIGHT.
ReplyDeleteBut note that when it comes to Ms. Miers, we are continuosly bombarded with her beliefs. There's hypocrisy here, but I'm not totally sure where it's coming from. Or perhaps it's just that Roberts was smart enough to distinguish between a belief system and a legistlature and Harriet Miers is not?
Beleifs are not credentials.