The Most Cognizant Reason Against Miers

This is from a junior at Notre Dame. WOW! We better watch this kid!

The most damning quote of all came this week, however, when Bush said to
reporters: "People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. . . .[one
of the reasons is that] part of Harriet Miers' life is her
religion."

Irrespective of the fact that this is a mind-numbingly stupid
reason for nominating someone to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, the fact that
the President made this comment as an appeal to his conservative base places the
Senate in the position of having to reject her nomination or risk the setting of
a grossly unconstitutional precedent.

Article VI of the Constitution states
that “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.” As the New York Sun pointed out
recently, it is the single most absolutist and emphatic sentence in the entire
Constitution. For those who would say that just because President Bush
considered Miers’ religion in nominating her, that doesn’t necessarily mean he
was imposing any kind of “religious test,” I would implore you to think of it
this way: if part of the reason the President nominated Miers was her religion,
then that necessitates the fact that part of the reason other prospects were not
nominated was because they did not have the same “quality” of religion that
Harriet Miers did. Thus, they were subjected to a religious test by the
President in considering them for an appointment to the Supreme Court. This is
grossly unconstitutional, and if it is allowed to stand, it will be a tacit
admission that the “Religious Test” clause has become outdated and inoperable,
and we will be one major step closer to theocracy.

He has an excellent point and I'm going to make sure both my Senators know this!