Related articles and links |  1 of 3

•

Harriet Miers's withdrawal from Supreme Court consideration on Thursday illuminated the deep divide among evangelical leaders about President Bush's decision to nominate his personal lawyer. Some leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and James Dobson of Focus on the Family, enthusiastically backed Miers from nearly the beginning. The White House wooed some reluctant activists by discussing her evangelical faith. Still, many reserved public judgment as they scrambled to learn more about the President's longtime friend.

As Miers visited senators and prepared for hearings, conflicting revelations emerged about her views on issues, including abortion and the role of the courts. No one could pin down Bush's stealth nominee. So evangelicals argued about how much they could trust the embattled President, who had promised to nominate justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

"It was a lot better to withdraw the nomination than to go through a bruising battle and lose," said Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). "At least we didn't have to go on squabbling as a Christian family over this. There was a lot more behind-the-scenes squabbling among Christians than was reported.

"Harriet Miers displayed an incredible degree of character and integrity throughout the process, by everyone's admission. She showed more of the right stuff than the President did in selecting her."

In the end, many evangelicals could not reconcile their hopes for changing the courts with their worry about Miers's thin constitutional expertise. Bush's reassurances did little good.

But experience wasn't the only concern. The confirmation may have suffered its fatal blow on October 26, when The Washington Post quoted a 1993 speech in which Miers told a Dallas women's group that "we gave up [a long time ago] on legislating religion and morality. … When science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act." She also praised notable pro-choice leaders, including Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton, and framed the abortion issue as between "the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."

After Miers withdrew, Dobson issued a press release saying these revelations caused him concern, and he probably would have rescinded his support.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told CT, "The idea that the President could use his credibility with his supporters to lay out her judicial philosophy without anyone knowing for sure was too far of a reach."

Still, Christians opposed to Miers faced the awkward problem of criticizing someone the White House touted as a faithful evangelical.

"Judicial philosophy is relevant in the nomination process, but religious affiliation or creed is not, and it shouldn't be used to exclude or include any nominee," said Anthony Picarello, president and chief counsel of the Becket Fund. "Recent experience shows that this is a risk for politicians on both sides of the aisle."

"We evangelical Christians didn't inject religion into this. The President did," Cizik said. "[The White House] wanted support for her and went to some high-profile evangelical leaders and got it. But as others have pointed out, the 'faith-based conservatives' who trusted in the infallibility of President Bush's judgment on this one didn't win out. It was the reality-based conservatives who did."

next page... |  1 of 3

share this page

October (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49