Jay Manifold suggests (I assume tongue in cheek) that the President should be impeached because he pledges to put people on the bench who believe that our rights are endowed by our creator. This is on the basis of Article VI, which states in part:

...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States...

Sorry, Jay, no cigar. All that means is that it can't be made a law. A president can nominate anyone he wants for the bench, for whatever reason, and the Senate can advise and consent, or not, for whatever reason. Certainly there's nothing impeachable here. Unless you can explain just what would be treasonous about his statement, or how it could constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.

If presidents could be impeached simply for misinterpreting the Constitution, then they all should be impeached.

The ones who need to be impeached are the Senil-oops-Senators that are blocking the votes. The President has the right to choose his nominees, the Senators are only to "advise and consent", not choose their own.

And if one does have a problem with the Prez choosing on his own criteria, one need only refer to Gore and Clinton, who made it clear that Roe v. Wade was the only test for their choices.

My suggestion was deliberately outrageous. As I subsequently wrote to someone else, one of the risks of representative democracy is that sometimes we elect somebody who really is kinda like most of us. I'm sure GWBush was more or less blurting out what was on his mind. Too bad about Article VI, Section 3, public awareness of which is essentially nil.

I had some additional fun with an update to that post ...

I had a good laugh at Jay's comment, but I think your first responder (Mr. Summers) has a curious view of "advise and consent". Seeing as how they didn't get to advise (he picked the nominees, with no consultation that I am aware of), then surely they should hold onto "consent". Are you of the opinion that the vote should only have a "yes" box and no "no" box? That is a very curious type of consent. It seems rather, well, non-consensual. It seems pretty clear that the Senators are exercising their right to "consent", by refusing to consent under some circumstances. If you don't like it, feel free to use your power to vote them out of office.

Paul: My statement was a little simplistic, but yes, I believe the Senate does not have the right to hold nominees hostage to political views. Specifically, it is wrong for a few senators to block voting on nominees for their political views rather than competence. Unless there is a real issue with the qualification or competence of a nominee, it should go to the floor for a vote. The "advice and consent" of the Senate has, until recently, been understood to include only the fitness of the candidate, not the politics, and I have not yet seen a single instance of a Bush nominee being bottled up except for politics.

The relevant section of the Constitution reads:
"and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court".

The "advice" is not for the nominee but for the actual appointment.