Ok, I'm on the bandwagon.

Miers, the primary topic of almost every newspaper, talk radio show, blog and syndicated columnist in the US. And now I'm writing about it.

The primary, or should I say sole, support for her seems to be based on religion and relationship. She has virtually no background, no judicial experience, and not even any verifiable evidence of her judicial philosophy. You wouldn't recommend that a person without a law degree take up a position in one of the US's most prestigious law firms, and to nominate a person without any judicial experience whatsoever for a seat in the highest court in our nation is simply and unquestionably asinine. As Charles Krauthammer so well said: "There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the U.S. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them other than her connection with the president?"

She was his personal lawyer. He knows her character. She has the same "constructionist" philosophy that he does. "Trust him, he knows her character." Or does he? "She will be the same 20 years down the road." Or will she? How would he know? What exactly are we supposed to trust him about? That he's not making a mistake? And what are we supposed to trust him based on? His promised fulfillment of "the mandate?"

Or take the argument of my mother. "What if God told him to nominate her?" Sure. God would tell him to nominate a person who has virtually no track record, no experience, recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court, donated thousands to the political complains of both democrats and republicans as well as supporting gay rights and homosexual adoption (as any stable, single-minded conservative would do) , either ignorantly, or intentionally and illegally promoted women in action (and every one knows that it's in our best interest to nominate a lawyer that is either ignorant of her profession or willfully criminal.) I don't know about you, but as the creator of logic and sanity, I think God would be a little bit more logical and sane than that.

And what does religion have to do with it anyway? According to the Best of the Web Today: "Miers' faith has become a key part of a White House outreach campaign to conservatives wary of her nomination..... President Bush said Wednesday that efforts by his staff to underscore the evangelical religious beliefs of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers are appropriate because those beliefs are a crucial part of her backckground."

"A crucial part of her backckground." Give me a break... Let me quote columnist Richard Robinette: "You're telling me that if someone claims to be an evangelical christian, they're automatically qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? Perhaps the only question on a job application should be "Are you an Evangelical Christian? Check yes or no" or "Are you saved? Check yes or no.""

According to CitizenLink there is nothing "that prohibits the President from considering a potential nominees’ faith a "plus."" That's really good... considering that she has virtually no other credentials.

I'm an evangelical christian, why doesn't somebody nominate me? Or Pat Robertson... or Benny Hinn... certainly faith is part of Billy Grahm's life, why didn't the president nominate him?
As matter of fact since all religions must be considered constitutionally equal, and as long religion is considered a plus, and no experience is necessary, why don't we nominate Anton LaVey, or L Ron Hubbard, or Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, or Charles Taze Russell or even Myrtle Fillmore (after all she is a woman)!? They're all extremely religious people. Founders of their various religions actually. Satanism. Scientology. Transcendental Meditation. Jehovah's Witness. Unity School of Christianity. It's all a plus right? Now if they just knew the president.