checks and balances.

The withdrawel of Harriet Miers' nomination to the supreme court of the united states has caused consternation in several political circles. it has also caused a lot of blame-slinging, with most people opining that, underneath it all, it was the religious conservatives who defected from their own president and bashed his nominee. the religios conservatives are slinging the blame on themselves, in fact, and crowing about the repercussions of not listening to them.

the problem is, they appear to have forgotten exactly how this country works. harriet miers was not rejected by senators on both sides of the aisle because of her conservative credentials, or lack thereof. she was rejected because she had been nominated to the bench on the highest court in the nation, and she had no experience as a judge. none. zip. she was a lawyer and a politician. she also had no experience in constitutional law. the voice of a single minority, however loud, should not be, and is not under our constitution, enough to swing the direction of our government. the religious right may continue to pat themselves on the back, however, for they are taking the credit for an action that cost them absolutely nothing in terms of effort or finger-lifting.

the other thing the religious right has forgotten is that the constitution of the united states structures our government in a system of checks and balances. neither the executive, legislative, or judicial branches outweigh each other. this is very convenient to forget, because while you can lobby politicians, you cannot lobby judges. the recent accusations of "legislating from the bench" overlook the fact that this is exactly what scotus is supposed to do. the supreme court is explicitly given the power to overturn legislation or executive orders that are unconstitutional, as analyzed by recognized experts in interpretation of said document. the judicial branch, as much as the other two, has the power to shape the legal landscape in this country. it is not to be a rubber stamp for congress and the president. it is to be an independent judiciary.

the moral stance of a minority cannot be allowed to be the guiding principle of this country. personal feelings are not law. the laws of this nation are not based on the establishment of a religion, but based on the rights of the individual. what the conservative christian lobby is doing is both un-american and un-christian. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

(concience compels me to destroy the punchiness of that conclusion by adding that this is not to imply that christians qua christians should not get involved in politics at all, but to point out that that is a guide of conduct for all behaviour)