Someone hinted that W. may not be the only one channeling God in this latest nomination. If we are to believe W, he was only answering the call. If we are to believe the good Reverend Dobson, Rove was only describing the Call. If we are to believe the record, well Harriet is...
More beneath the fold.
Someone hinted that W. may not be the only one channeling God in this latest nomination. Many hints, many people. Most frightening are those hints attributed to Bush. If we are to believe W, he was only answering the call. And gutting the Bill of Rights and a history of questionable appointments is his answer to that Call. If we are to believe the good Reverend Dobson, Rove was only describing the Call. If we are to believe the record, well Harriet is...
Only Answering the call of God. What about scholarship? What about knowledge of constitutional law? What about cronyism? What if my God doesn't speak on your wavelength?
Answers, from this group? Never mind dear children. Our leaders would have us believe they are hearing the only true voice of God. Sheeple, we have to respond to their call. Loudly. Now. And make them understand that their God may be on a broadcast network while everyone elses is on cable. There are several strategies, as I see it.
First, let the Religious Right implode on their own. This is attractive because it would accomplish so much more than the narrow, focused bandwidth of the nomination to the Supremes. Unfortunately, this strategy requires that the Right recognize that a religious test, while still prohibited by Article VI of the Constitution, could be used against them, in future.
The danger of litmus tests, applied covertly or not, is that the use of such tests will be applied against those using them at present. Kind of like torture. In future battles, our captured soldiers will be subject to torture, which the future torturers will claim is entirely fair, based on the Bybee and Yoo memos of this Administration. Our Founding Fathers thought of this back in 1787. We, in the age of instant communication and a sort of group electronic "think", are not so blessed with foresight.
So, implosion is a risky path of action. No predictable outcome. Not a good move. Besides, it is passive, and not generally appealing for the anger building on the progressive side. And on the conservative side, praise be.
Second choice, pillory Miers for lack of thought, dearth of judgment, and an all-encompassing lack of ability to communicate. This strategy requires hammering the nominee on her vapid prose. The most glaring example is her assessment of Dubya as "the most brilliant man she had ever met". In whatever guise her evaluation of her boss is clothed, the outcome is the same. Harriet hasn't met brilliant, or she is so blinded by power that she can't recognize it when she sees it. Looming large. In the same room.
This strategy requires constant reminders that Ms. Miers has met brilliant, and the penultimate version is not wearing Dubyas cowboy boots. Unless, of course, Dubya makes all people walking into the White House for a meeting or dinner, wear his boots for the occasion.
Danger lurks here also. The bar has been set so low with the half of the country that allegedly voted for Bush, they might just presume that any toddler able to get over the line, is in fact brilliant. And not just in said toddler's parents eyes.
Third, concentrate on lack of legal scholarship. We're getting to the money strategy here. Harriet has obviously never spent her entire life in learning the complex nuances of constitutional law. There is a reason the group of attorneys known to all constitutional appellate lawyers is so small. They are the chosen few who argue most cases before the Supreme Court.
There are over a million lawyers in this country. Many don't even practice law. Most are journeymen practitioners who never even write a federal appeal. Of those, very few go with clients on an appeal to the Supreme Court. The smart ones, with clients destined for the Supreme Court, recognize it early and bring in a constitutional scholar at the lower level, or hire one at the appellate level.
Few attorneys are ever admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court. Relative to the general population of lawyers, they are members of the "elite priesthood" that face the Olympian group in D.C. The other constitutional scholars also teach. In really good law schools.
Since there has been no collection of papers written by Miers showing any level of constitutional scholarship, we are getting close to the ultimate strategy. And here's the one several scholars have seen, and that I agree with, as a recovering lawyer.
Combine all three strategies set out here, with a few from learned others. The "money" strategy is to do this.
Set forth the fact the woman can't write clear sentences. She can't recognize brilliance when it comes up and threatens to smack her on the face. Point out that her discernment is questionable. And then, we must stress that there has been no production of law review articles, articles in any publication, or legal briefs showing constitutional scholarship.
There is also the "wink, wink, nod, nod" of the Good Reverend Dobson. The Rove/Dobson conversation means only one thing. The qualification of "she is a religious woman whose religion is a part of her life, and she won't change in the next 20 years" is laughable at best. It is potentially fatal at worst. It is a veiled religious test. Salome was better clothed at the end of the "Dance of the Seven Veils".
What happens if a future president suddenly "sees" the Light, and the source is nothing less than Tree Worship. Foresters are the only people that can pass the test of "There's nothing so lovely as a tree" that is the Credo of this religion. No trees can be felled. Corn stalks must be used for all paper. And only forest managers can be appointed to any position in government because, tree worship is their religion!!! Sound far fetched? Not at all.
The current administration presumes that their religious system sets forth the only way to get to heaven. Their Jesus says it's okay to force women to back alley abortions. Their Jesus approves of bombing Iraqi villages to bring democracy to people. Their Jesus is okay with killing innocent women and children (including pregnant women) in order to accomplish their goals. Their Jesus is all right with forcing every single person in this country to minimally recognize their branch of religiosity.
And therein lies the true danger. Are we, as a nation, to accept someone as they pass some unofficial religious test? I'm not. For a very simple reason. I know my view of God is not held universally. As a believing person, (no, I won't tell you what branch of the religious tree I am sitting on) I do not believe that my government, or any part of government, can impose a single set of beliefs on any person or institution. See Article VI and the Establishment Clause of the Constitution if you don't believe me. Lots of constitutional scholarship to be found in the legal opinions there, too.
In short, the real test is to insist on a nominee's personal history of phenomenally brilliant scholarship that is properly within the centuries old tradition of our government. We must insist on discernment. If a concept is difficult to understand, we must not jump on the bandwagon of "higher intelligence". If we cannot envision the complexity of life, biological or social, we must not demean God by insisting we cannot know the intricacies. After all, hundreds of years ago, fire was an element, not rapid oxidation with heat production. If I can't understand something, I don't automatically say it must be impossible to learn. I buckle down and learn it, or leave it to someone else to decipher. Is prayer a part of it? Only right before calculus exams.
For example, I don't understand why French children can speak that language so briliantly. However, I have learned that they know French as I know English. Same with genetics. Same with the tax code. And I will never believe God was behind the U.S. Tax Code. Talk about inscrutable complexity...
All of us, both sides of the aisle, must bring back the standard of incisive thought, extensive legal or other scholarship, openness to consider all facts and opinions. Bring forth candidates able to understand that they don't know everything, and in any event it might not be the voice of God in their ears. Give us the highest and best people in our government. They don't call it the Supreme Court for nothing. Don't insult us with mediocrity in any appointment, especially one that is for life and where interpretation of the Constitution is at stake.
And finally, based upon the record, let us evaluate appointees by their record. If they haven't spent their time in an area where they are possibly going to serve the country, don't nominate them. The candidate that hasn't spent time in constitutional scholarship has a track record of not believing constitutional scholarship is the highest and best use of their time. The past is prologue. Give us your best. But just don't give us the best lackey. And don't in the name of all that is good and right, claim that your God is telling you what to do. Or setting forth the standard of what anyone else is to do. Temporal life requires evaluation of temporal things. And your notion of God may not be exactly right for everyone. Most important, it may not be the best for the country.