The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has created a visable schism on the Right. A diverse collection of conservatives--David Frum, Pat Buchanan, George Will, John Podhoretz, William Kristol, Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan--believe the nomination of Harriet Miers to be a mistake. Conspicuously absent from this list of conservatives are leading evangelical Christians, who, for the most part, have thrown in their lot with coreligionists George W. Bush and Harriet Miers.

Pat Robertson calls Harriet Miers a "superb pick." James Dobson guardedly holds that Miers "appears to be an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court." Jerry Falwell labels Bush's nominee a "woman of great character, and a lover of Christ."

But would Robertson, Dobson, and Falwell really prefer a Supreme Court of activist judges who love Christ to a Supreme Court of strict constructionists who don't believe in Christ?

The identity politics surrounding the nomination of Harriet Miers has more to do with religion than gender. Depending upon who you believe, there are 50 million, or 75 million, or 100 million, or some other number of evangelical Christians in America. Their population on the U.S. Supreme Court is more precise: zero. Unlike Catholics and Jews, who are overrepresented on the High Court, evangelicals lay claim to no justice. The same feeling of exclusion evangelicals felt in representative politics during the 1960s and '70s, they are feeling today with regard to the Supreme Court. They want in. Can you blame them? But are Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson willing to sacrifice their principles just to get a place at the table? Miers's support for affirmative action, donations to various Democrats, membership in a Progressive Voters League, and advocacy of a feminist lecture series at Southern Methodist University, apparently, matters less than where she goes to church.

Partly for "been there, done that" reasons, and partly for the philosophical divisions within their faiths, Catholics and Jews have responded to Supreme Court picks based on their political rather than religious beliefs. After all, Catholics (Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy) and Jews (Douglas Ginsburg, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) nominated to the court have held views all over the political map. But evangelical leaders, based on their knee-jerk support for Harriet Miers, seem to believe that their religion is immune from the divisions that characterize Judiasm, Catholicism, and mainline Protestantism. What else explains the confidence of evangelical leaders in the president's pick? They, not the rest of us, know the people in the pews of their churches, so perhaps evangelicals such as Roberts, Falwell, and Dobson know something that the rest of us don't. Or perhaps, having entered the game of identity politics, they too will get burnt as other players, most notably African Americans, have.

In politics, the ties that bind are often religious, ethnic, and regional. The strength of these ties has the ability to tear ideological ties asunder.

Dan,

Great post. You are lately dissecting the "conservatives" like a neurosurgeon. Fascinating.

Comments like "knee-jerk" support are a turn-off. The insults are really inappropriate; it is obvious that people of faith "turn you off!" Perhaps Harriet Mier is not the correct pick but attacking someone because you obviously do not like the messenger makes you look "little"; I for one am still asking question, researching and trying to keep an open mind until I "seek out" the facts. Your post did nothing for me. I will look elsewhere for specific information concerning the nomination. Most of the time I enjoy your site, but this one was truly "the pits!"

Disappointed: You say you are going to keep an open mind about Miers, but wasn't the point of the post that Dobson, Robertson, and Fallwall have a closed mind? Aren't they are assuming she will be a fine SC justice, despite strong evidence to the contrary? They seem to be basing their opinion on two things: religious affiliation and a wink from the Pres. No?

Also, Disapointed: You say that Flynn is against people of faith. Serious accusation, I think. Question: Does doubting Miers and evangelical leaders mean that a person is against Christ's followers?

I have a short article on this subject coming up in Junge Freiheit. Since it will be in German, I think it's OK for me to post the english version here.

_________________
The nomination of Harriot Miers to the Supreme Court by President Bush has sparked outrage among movement conservatives centered in Washington, DC and . Grover Norquists The neoconservative weekly standard called the decision, “at best an error, at worst a disaster.” Writing in National Review, former Bush Speechwriter said the decision was made with “pique and self-indulgence” rather than “patriotism, principle, and public spirit.” According to the New York Times, there was near unanimous outrage at Grover Norquist’s weekly meeting of major conservative activists.
While the Beltway Right, many of whom do not care about or are liberal on social issues like abortion and gay marriage are up in arms over the nomination, most of the leaders of the Christian Right who’s raison d’etre is to oppose gay rights and abortion, support her . Robert Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention said, "If Harriet Miersdidn't rule the way George W. Bush thought she would, he would see that as an act of betrayal and so would she." James Dobson, declared that he believes “Harriet Mierswill be a good justice” based on some sort of personal assurance from Karl Rove.
The reaction of both sides is hard to believe. The new found indignation of the neoconservatives is strange given that Bush has done absolutely nothing conservative during his presidency. Bush’s Amnesty for illegal immigrants, 500 billion dollar prescription drug plan, No Child Left Behind bill, support of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Affirmative Action, and record budgets and deficits have only gotten minor whimpers from conservatives. Even those who acknowledged that Bush was far from conservative, insisted that the Right had to support him because of the terrible Supreme Court picks that Kerry would give. It is hard for Bush to betray his principles, because he has shown very few principles during his presidency besides agitating for war and rewarding his friends. This newfound indignation by conservatives show is either dishonest or just plain stupid.
The reaction for the religious right is much easier to explain. They like Bush because he seems like a good Christian. Miers is also an evangelical Christian and they trust her because she’s a friend to Bush. As their interests get swept aside, all they care about is that they would like to have the president over at a neighborhood barbecue. We don’t know whether Miers will be the next David Souter or Clarence Thomas, but the one thing that is for certain is that the political right, from the grassroots to the beltway is truly the Stupid Party.

This is one evangelical Christian who is dead-set against Miers for a few basic reasons in terms of personnel, in terms of ideology, in terms of politics:

1) Personnel--Miers is loyal to Bush only. She has no demonstrated loyalty to a conservative line of thinking. She is not among conservative judicial luminaries who, while disagreeing around the edges on things here and there, are solidly conservative at the core of what is conservative, strict constructionist jurisprudence.

2) Ideology/philosophy--- it's undemonstrated what her ideology is. We are asked to believe it's strict constructionism, but we don't have strong evidence to point to that. Or if she is one, we have no strong evidence that she can make a persuasive intellectual case in court opinions, concurrences, and dissents which will be passed down to future generations of legal scholars and law students who go on to shape the future jurisprudence of our country.

3) Political--this was a tone deaf appointment tailored only to one segment of the conservative base, not one which garnered widespread acceptance by all segments of the base, which Bush could have had in Janice Rogers Brown or any other number of appointees. Additionally, when it became apparent this was sinking like a lead balloon, the Bushies charged critics with elitism and sexism, or religious bigotry, and cravenly sold Miers's religious affiliation as a proxy argument for her judicial temperment and strict constructionist philosophy. It's patently offensive and insulting, the sort of crap I'd expect from Clinton screwing off an "inconvenient" but crucial part of his base. This is not what our President should do to us.