White House hypocrisy.

Byline: The Register-Guard

President Bush and his aides are engaging in a blatantly hypocritical campaign to use Harriet Miers' religious faith to mollify conservatives who have questioned her qualifications to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Seems like only yesterday that the White House was insisting - appropriately - that John Roberts' religion should have nothing whatsoever to do with his confirmation. There is, of course, a clear provision in the U.S. Constitution - Article VI, Clause 3 - that there shall be no religious tests for federal office.

But now that the Miers nomination has rankled leading conservatives and is clearly in serious trouble, Bush and his aides want to make sure conservatives have carefully examined Miers' nonjudicial qualifications: She is a born-again Christian from a conservative evangelical congregation that is "almost universally pro-life."

In a questionable effort to enlist the support of conservative Christians for Miers, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove secretly briefed James Dobson on Miers' background two days before Bush announced her nomination. The founder of the anti-abortion Focus on Family organization endorsed Miers after his meeting with Rove, saying "some of the things that I know - that I probably shouldn't know."

What kinds of things, Mr. Dobson? Did Rove reveal how Miers would vote on abortion cases? Dobson denies that, but members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena him to testify under oath about his meeting with Rove.

Not that Bush is using an abortion litmus test to select nominees for the Supreme Court. He doesn't have to if he can nominate personal friends whose religious beliefs closely match his own.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush said Wednesday. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

And once again, Mr. President, her religion is important because ...?

Because Bush hopes to stanch the hemorrhaging support for Miers among conservatives by reminding them in the universally understood code of the religious right that Miers' devout faith is a reliable predictor of her positions on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in public schools, the Pledge of Allegiance, abstinence-only sex education, the Ten Commandments in public buildings, creationism vs. evolution and any other culture war issue dear to their hearts.

This unmitigated hypocrisy is offensive on a number of levels. The White House insisted that the Senate Judiciary Committee owed Roberts' the opportunity to establish, independent of his religious faith, the judicial philosophy that would govern his approach to cases that came before the Supreme Court. The administration has flipped 180 degrees on the Miers nomination. The current emphasis on Miers' born-again religious beliefs is an orchestrated effort to relieve uncertainty about her judicial philosophy and assuage fears that she may be too moderate on matters such as homosexuality.

"Don't worry," the White House winks. "She's an evangelical Christian."

Never mind about Miers' legal qualifications, or lack thereof. If her specific religious beliefs were a key part of why Bush chose her to serve on the Supreme Court, then it means qualified candidates who did not share those beliefs would have been at a potentially insurmountable disadvantage. Stated another way: If it walks like a religious test and talks like a religious test, it probably is a religious test.

Because the Constitution mandates that Miers' faith should have no bearing on her fitness for office, it also has no place in the administration's rationale for her nomination. She is being nominated as a justice on the Supreme Court, not as a deacon on a church council.

Miers has every right to live her faith proudly as she sees fit, but that faith is neither a qualification nor a disqualification for a seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate should not vote to confirm her unless she articulates a philosophy of judging that proves she will approach cases objectively based on the Constitution and the fair application of the law.