Harriet Miers and the Faith Card

Joe Gandelman flags a WaPo article suggesting that the White House's new strategy for salvaging Harriet Miers' SCOTUS nomination will be to play the faith card:

... the White House plans to regain the upper hand by focusing on the nominee's conversion to evangelical Christianity.

"Conservatives love a fight with liberals," the strategist said. "And one of the things liberals are scared to death of is organized religion. And Harriet Miers is a born-again Christian. When liberal groups and others begin to read about her affirming the Texas sodomy law, contributing to pro-life groups and her religious faith, they're going to go crazy. It's already happening now."

A couple of thoughts. First, judges are supposed to decide cases based on the law not their religious beliefs, a point that figured prominently in the extended debate over on my personal blog with David Giacalone over the Roberts nomination. As I observed earlier in commenting on Miers' reputation for being a "pit bull in size 6 shoes":

If confirmed, Miers' job therefore will require her to set aside her "very strong views of what's right and wrong" in favor of those moral norms and policies that have sufficient social support - or, in the case of constitutional and statutory interpretation, those norms and policies reflected in the texts and the intent of their drafters - to be legitimate grist for the judicial mill.

That holds true whether her "very strong views" are based on secular or religious reasoning. Hence, the White House's strategy represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial role. Indeed, as Rev. Patrick Mahoney pointed out today, the White House strategy is inconsistent with the tack many conservatives took during the Roberts nomination:

The Constitution makes it clear that there shall be no religious litmus test for any person seeking public office. The faith community worked diligently during the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts to ensure his Catholic faith did not become an issue during the process. It is both troubling and hypocritical for the supporters of Harriet Miers to promote her strong evangelical faith to garner support among religious conservatives. You cannot it have both ways. Groups and leaders cannot say religion is off limits during the Roberts confirmation and then promote religion during the Miers confirmation for the sole purpose of political gain.

(Actually, as readers who have been with me since the Roberts nomination know, I didn't think Roberts' faith was completely off-limits, but still I take the Reverend's point.)

Finally, as a former evangelical who converted to Catholicism, I worry that those playing the faith card here will open old wounds between our two branches of Christianity. As Andrew Sullivan observes:

DOBSON AND CATHOLICISM: Here's an interesting remark: "I know the person who brought her to the Lord. I have talked at length to people that know her and have known her for a long time." That's James Dobson, talking about Harriet Miers' conversion to evangelical Protestantism from Catholicism. Isn't he implying that baptized Catholics have not been "brought to the Lord"? Just asking.

There is still an element in the evangelical community that firm believes Catholics are not Christians. (Jack Chick is just the worst of the lot.) The promising theological and political rapprochement between some evangelicals and some Catholics is still quite tenuous. If the people playing the faith card to get Miers confirmed aren't careful, they could do grave damage to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together project and even the Republican coalition. It was, after all, us weekly Mass attending Catholics who elected George Bush in 2004.