Cal Thomas is, as nearly always, spot on with his comments about Harriet Meiers' evangelical religion being played as a trump card. Excerpts...
...Her friend, Texas Supreme Court Judge Nathan Hecht, was asked on Fox News Sunday (Oct. 9) how Miers could separate her faith from her work. Hecht replied it is "easy" because, "Legal issues and personal issues are just two different things. Judges do it all the time. In fact, a judge is going to take an oath that says I'm going to judge rightly in cases, which means that you have to set aside your personal views in deciding the case. And if you don't do that, you're either a bad believer in your views, a bad judge or both."
From that answer comes this question: If Harriet Miers can easily set aside her faith on the job, what is the point of nominating someone with such faith? Why not nominate someone of no faith and the question would never come up? Is faith good only for the confirmation process, but not the job?...
...Harriet Miers should not be required to deny her faith as the price of confirmation, but neither should she be allowed to hide her intent to use it, or lose it, once on the bench.
The Apostle James wrote, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17). Will the faith of Harriet Miers die on the court, or will her works die? Inquiring minds not only want to know; we need to know before passing judgment.
