The fact the she's an evangelical Christian means nothing to me. Does not the Constitution prescribe that we have no religious lithmus test for judicial appointments? Have not all conservatives for years been arguing that one's religious beliefs should have no influence on how one interprets the constitution? And because she was such a horrible pick now we were suppose to accept this as a reason to accept her? Ridiculous. I'm happy she was withdrawn (or withdrew if you really think that was the case)... it saved her the embarrassment of the hearings and gives Bush the opportunity to keep his word. To nominate originalists who won't determine our ends but will leave policy to the people.

*Update: Poor Harriet. I wonder what convinced her this wasn't her true calling in life. The same inner circle who tried to sell to America that it was her calling? Perhaps she just thought it was better to be assumed underqualified than to remove all doubt by answering questions for the Senate Judiciary Committee. *Original review: In theory, this should be irrelevant. Things like gender, race, religious background, etc. aren't supposed to matter in hiring decisions. Such things aren't supposed to be related to the depth of someone's qualifications. It is puzzling that Bush's circle has used her faith as a primary selling point to appease the disappointed Republican party. This strategy is short-sighted because the Republican party is diverse and obviously people care to see more than whether she is a trusty evangelical. Bush's message: "Have faith in my faith that her faith translates into the uncompromising voting pattern you are looking for."

If religion is professed as a reason to vote someone in for any judicial position, there is a great chance that religious precepts will creep in to judgements which are supposed to be judged on the written law. There is a reason that judges nowadays caution juries not to use biblical teachings when deliberating.

The Bush administration has totally fumbled in managing this nomination. Here you have Bush jumping around blatantly attempting to justify the nomination as offering a little bit of something for everyone, but turns out that he hasn't satisfied anyone. This only demonstrates very clearly that the process of picking judges has become excessively politicized. Even more troubling is this use of religion to assume that a nominee will vote a certain way. A model judge is supposed to go into a case impartially without any preconceived notion of how they will decide a case. Traditionally, religious belief is something that does not go into the equation when selecting a judge. Doing so would only set a bad precedent. Bush called attention to her religion, and this completely backfired on her. Not only are religious conservatives not satified, but liberals who were previously on the fence with this nomination are now completely against her. The political incompetence of this administration is simply astounding. Where's Karl Rove when you need him?

A closet zealot who will not interpret the law but use her religion as a basis to change it. Evangelical Christianity is allergic to academic principles of freedom- it isn't commensurate with American concepts of tolerance of other ways of life. The only way a pro-life judge can get on the court is this hush-hush-don't-tell-anyone-make-sure-there's-no-paper-trail Bush way. Know why? You live in a world that values choice. I wish she was more honest and open, but then again, she's friends with dubya- what on god's green earth do you expect, the truth?

Religion should not have anything to do with how a person is judged to be suitable for a position.

Seems to be the primary reason cited by her supporters - that seems a little screwy to me.