Senate Democrats are agitated and angry because a Republican group has been running an ad accusing them of employing a de facto religious test for judgships. The Democrats will approve no one, the ad argues, who has a “deeply held,” i.e., religion-based, opposition to abortion, even if they maintain that they can, and will, separate their personal views from what the law requires. (See here for a conservative critique of the ad, and here for a conservative reply to the conservative critique.)
“It is shameful, it is disgusting, it is unacceptable” said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) of the ad. “Where are the faim-minded Republican Senators?” whined Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt). But it was left to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to set the standard of comity to which the Republicans should aspire. Speaking of Ala. attorney general William Pryor, nominated to the 11th Circuit and blocked yesterday by the Democrats, the diplomatic Sen. Schumer observed that “[i]n a sense, he’s the Frankenstein nominee — a stitching together of the worse parts of the worst nominees the president has sent us.”
Pretty soon Schumer will be reduced to ad hominem outbursts.
From the National Review article: “Some in the U.S. Senate are attacking Bill Pryor for having ‘deeply held’ Catholic beliefs to prevent him from becoming a federal judge,” the ad said. “Don’t they know the Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for public office?”
Well, this question is spot-on. It appears the problem with the ad is that it accuses the attackers of being specifically anti-Catholic rather than anti-religious or against anyone with religious convictions that don’t square with their agenda, which actually is more likely to be the case.
Still, the point about religious tests being forbidden by the Constitution is a very good one, and it’s a good thing that it has been raised. Probably should have been a long time ago.
The question is horse manure, and even many conservatives know it, although they like the political implications of pursuing these lies.
If Pryor’s sincere religious beliefs preclude his following stare decisis and upholding the law of the land, then opposition to him, even if based on aboriton, is not “anti-Catholicism”. You can’t immunize political beliefs from criticism by claiming they arise from religious beliefs (even if this is true). This is, by the way, just as true about capital punishment as it is on abortion. (Pryor doesn’t follow the Catholic Church’s latest teachings on capital punishment, though.)
No one would ever nominate a Jewish candidate who made speech after speech about government ridding the country of cheeseburgers and bacon. Anti-Semitism? Hardly.
As it happens, I would be tired of using Roe as a test for judges except that Team Conservative is not. But Pryor is completely unfit for judicial office for many other reasons.
“The Democrats will approve no one, the ad argues, who has a “deeply held,” i.e., religion-based, opposition to abortion, even if they maintain that they can, and will, separate their personal views from what the law requires.”
If in fact the candidate does mantain that he will upheld the law, then his deeply-held beliefs are none of the Democrats’ business. I see nothing in your link to dispute this.
Look, slavery was once the law of the land. It was the “deeply-held beliefs” of abolitionists that ended it. You want this country to go straight to hell, tell people they cannot have moral convictions.
Seems to me that Laura is right. The question is not what deeply held beliefs a judicial nominee has, or the source of those beliefs, but whether he or she will uphold/apply the law when it conflicts with those beliefs. Otherwise, liberals should oppose any nominee who opposes abortion, and conservatives should oppose any nominee who doesn’t. Come to think of it, that’s about where we are.
I think it’s also relevant to note, however, that in today’s intellectual climate conservatives continue to believe that there is a distinction between law and politics much more often than do liberals. Indeed, one of the reasons they concentrate on “deeply held beliefs” is that many of them believe that’s all there is, and hence they are unpersuaded by claims that a nominee will follow the law even when it conflicts.
Some of you may have seen this already. I read this on Scrappleface and got a great laugh–though the trend of left-wing, politically correct lunacy is hardly a mirthful matter.
Episcopal Church Appoints First Openly-Muslim Bishop
(2003-08-04) — Bishops in the Episcopal Church today approved the election of the first openly-Muslim bishop in the church’s history.
The Islamic cleric, who rejects the deity of Jesus Christ, received an overwhelming majority of the vote.
A spokesman for the Episcopal Church said the move demonstrates, “Our church is open to all people, regardless of their beliefs, or whether they accept the teachings of the Bible.”
The election of the Muslim bishop comes as the church stands ready to approve its first homosexual Bishop, V. Gene Robinson. Later today, the bishops plan to vote on the election of the church’s first openly-atheist bishop.