ACLU Grinch Strikes Again!!

[Rooster7]

and today in the U.S. the minority religions would like to relegate the majority to "second-class citizenship".

 

I see some evidence of this, but not necessarily by minority religions as much as it is by some special interest groups - such as the ACLU, gay and lesbian advocacy groups, NARL, NEA, and other non-faith based organizations that are driven solely by their narrowly defined agenda and the liberal pundits that lead them.

 

I resent the idea that all religious expression in public and/or done with the cooperation of the government is wrong and must be suppressed. From my reading of the Constitution, I believe separation of church and state applies to laws and public funding that would hinder the publics ability to practice a particular faith and/or penalize them for doing the same. I have no problem with this interpretation. However, since the 60s, some of our courts have embraced the idea that religious freedom means freedom from all influences of religion in government. To the point, that liberals in Congress think its appropriate to query potential jurists about their faith even when there is no evidence that these persons have ignored the law in preference to their faith. The vast majority of the time, it is persons of a Christian faith that are pressed and accused of having a conflict of interest. Its kind of ironic since our founding fathers were the decedents of Christians who escaped religious persecution by risking their lives to come to America.

 

[Hunt]

It was Sen. Orrin Hatch--a Republican--who asked Pryor his religious affiliation. Sen. Leahy--a Democrat--objected. It was all a circus because everybody knew his religion and his position on abortion already. Clearly, nobody cared about his religious beliefs--except as they might relate to decisions on abortion. And whatever else it might be, abortion is a controversial political issue.

[Rooster7]

Hunt,

 

Your recollection of that particular inquiry may be a 100% accurate, but please realize that these kinds of inquiries are not rare and are the hallmark of Democrats, not Republicans. Even a casual viewer of the news can gleam that truth.

 

As to why the inquiry was made, it should not matter. Without any signs of wrongdoing, controversial topics such as abortion should not be used as an excuse for questioning ones faith. These jurists are entitled to their own thoughts and beliefs so long as they enforce the laws of the land as written. You dont have to be a law student to understand that concept, not even a high school graduate. Its basic civics. Unless a congressman can demonstrate that a jurist has previously ignored the law in preference to his religious teaching, they have no business going there.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Hunt]

Inquiries into the religious faith of judicial nominees are, in fact, rare. I'm not aware of any other examples. Inquiries about the nominee's position on abortion are more common, but despite the effort to make such questions the basis for claims of anti-Catholicism, they aren't. They are no different from other questions designed to determine how potential judges will rule on controversial topics. Now, some people claim that it's improper to try to figure out how judges will rule, and that their qualifications are all that should matter--but the obvious truth is that conservative Presidents try their best to nominate conservative judges, and liberal Presidents try their best to nominate liberal judges. Why do they do this? Because judicial decisions, especially those by the Supreme Court, have an impact on long-term policies.

[NJCubScouter]

ScoutParent says:

 

and today in the U.S. the minority religions would like to relegate the majority to "second-class citizenship".

 

That's a pretty broad statement there, ScoutParent. All minority religions would like to do that? Or just some of them? And if it's just some of them, which ones? Or is it particular individuals within certain minority religions, and if so, which ones?

 

And, more important than what anyone would "like to" do, is it your opinion that anyone is actually doing anything to relegate the majority religion to second-class status? And if so, who is doing it, and what are they doing? What religions are these people members of, who are trying to subjugate the majority religion? And, do they have the power and the resources to do it?

[NJCubScouter]

So Rooster, exactly which judicial nominees were asked about their "faith" by Democratic senators? And what exactly were they asked?

 

When I have heard of questions posed to judicial nominees about religion, it was based on some statement or other indication that the person might use the judicial office as a forum to promote his or her religious beliefs or that the person would undermine the constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion. So as far as I know it really has nothing to do with someone's religious beliefs, it has to do with whether their religious beliefs would become the basis for their decisions, as opposed to the law.

 

Can you prove otherwise?

[Hunt]

This issue of the judicial nominees sent me on a Google hunt, and it's pretty interesting. As I interpret the facts, some Republicans took the position that Democratic questions about positions on Roe v. Wade were actually based on anti-Catholic bias--this is what led Hatch to ask Pryor about his faith--Hatch was trying to spotlight Pryor's staunch Catholicism to lend support to the idea that the Democrats were imposing a religious test on nominees.

Whatever you may think about abortion, this is certainly not the same as broad anti-Christian bias--instead, it's related to a specific, controversial issue--indeed, Pryor had publicly stated that he thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. There is no hint that any other aspect of Pryor's Catholicism was involved.

[NJCubScouter]

Thanks, Hunt. It's always nice to be able to base a discussion on actual facts, instead of things someone just made up.

[Rooster7]

And then there's this perspective:

 

The Constitution Be Damned

Democrats try to impose a religious test on judges.

BY BRENDAN MINITER

Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

Are Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats trying to establish a religious test for federal judges?

 

James Leon Holmes is the latest judicial nominee they've targeted. Before adjourning for Easter recess these Democrats demonized Mr. Holmes, persuading committee Republicans to put his nomination for a district court in Arkansas on hold until after the break. Then on Good Friday, New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer took to the airwaves on NPR to further attack Mr. Holmes.

 

This follows on the heels of the attacks on appeals-court nominees Priscilla Owen (a Sunday school teacher) and Charles Pickering (a former president of the Mississippi Baptist Convention). The Judiciary Committee rejected both when the Democrats were in the majority. President Bush has renominated both and it's likely Ms. Owen will eventually win confirmation--although Democrats may filibuster her nomination, as they are now doing to Miguel Estrada.

 

In Mr. Holmes's case the attacks are shocking, for the Democrats are openly targeting his religious convictions. Mr. Holmes's professional qualifications are impressive. He is an accomplished lawyer who has mostly practiced commercial litigation. He's a partner at the respected Little Rock firm Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Barrow. He was one of the lawyers to work on Rickey Ray Rector's defense. (Rector, a cop killer who was mentally retarded owing to a self-administered gunshot wound, was famously executed in 1992 after Bill Clinton took a break from the campaign trail to return to Arkansas and signed his death warrant.) Mr. Holmes received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association, and both Democratic Arkansas senators--Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor--support his nomination.

 

He also comes from humble roots. Among other things he's worked as a laborer picking peas before putting himself through law school at night while supporting his family.

 

The lightning rod here, of course, is abortion. It's no secret that the pope and the Catholic Church are squarely against abortion on demand. And Mr. Holmes, who once served as president of Arkansas Right to Life, is an orthodox Catholic. He's written articles against abortion and has even--God forbid--defended the rights of people to peaceably protest against the practice.

 

Abortion gives the Democrats some of their most fanatical supporters. So Sens. Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin feel safe in demonizing Mr. Holmes. They even dug up a 23-year-old letter in which Mr. Holmes argued against rape exemptions. Mr. Holmes says he no longer holds this view, and Sen. Durbin for one should sympathize, since 23 years ago he was pro-life.

 

Mr. Schumer is particularly critical because Mr. Holmes admitted to him that Roe v. Wade was one of the Supreme Court decisions he didn't agree with and because he refuses to promise to recuse himself if any of the right-to-life groups he's defended ever comes before him. Such pre-emptive recusals aren't in line with judicial ethics, which require federal judges to weigh the circumstances of each case before deciding on whether to recuse themselves.

 

It's not just about abortion, however. Judiciary Democrats took issue with Mr. Holmes's view of marriage. Citing an article Mr. Holmes and his wife wrote about the traditional Catholic teaching of a wife "subordinating" herself to her husband, Ms. Feinstein claimed he was antiwoman. Mr. Schumer asked if a battered woman bringing suit against her husband could have confidence in his impartiality.

 

Mr. Schumer went on to complain about and distort Mr. Holmes's views on separation of church and state, evolution, prayer in public schools and more. "We are not getting somebody in this case who refuses to tell us what he thinks, but the bottom line is what he thinks is so bad," New York's senior senator said.

 

The truth about Mr. Holmes's views is that he sees women as equal to men and in marriage each must assume collaborative roles--which is one reason many prominent Arkansas women who are also pro-choice support Mr. Holmes. In no way is Mr. Holmes endorsing legislating from the bench to impose religion on citizens. Just the opposite is true. Mr. Holmes has specifically staked out his views on religion and government in published articles--for the protection of a free state and religion, the two ought to be separate.

 

Sens. Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin and others, in their zeal over abortion, are now attempting to screen out judicial candidates who take their faith seriously. Judiciary Democrats may not like Catholic doctrine, but to hold religious convictions against a nominee is a blatant violation of the Constitution, which provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Liberals have a knack for finding new rights in "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution, but this one is right there in the document itself.

 

Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.

 

Taken From: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110003390

 

[Rooster7]

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[ScoutParent]

You certainly haven't changed much NJ. LOL.

[NJCubScouter]

ScoutParent: Nice way to avoid answering my questions.

 

But you're right, I probably haven't changed all that much in the year or so since you were last posting regularly on here. I still try not to make statements I cannot defend, and then when someone questions or challenges me, laugh it off as a joke. How about you?

[Hunt]

Despite its inflated rhetoric, the article from OpinionJournal confirms that the basis of what is going on is a disagreement over abortion, not a desire to discriminate against religious people per se. Indeed, the obvious desire of conservatives to have judges who disagree with Roe v. Wade is just as much a religious test as the reverse.

[NJCubScouter]

Hunt, I agree. There are a lot of opinions in that article and a lot of "characterization" (I won't call it "twisting") of the facts, but very few actual facts showing that Democratic senators were "persecuting" (or whatever word one wants to use) anyone on the basis of religion. As I said earlier, when religion has even been mentioned, the issue has been the extent to which someone may base their judicial decisions on their religious beliefs instead of on the law.

 

I will say that personally, I don't necessarily approve of every question or every tactic that the Democrats have employed in this battle over judicial confirmations. If some of them have implied that someone who opposes abortion is not a suitable candidate, they are wrong, and in fact of the 160 or so Bush nominations that the Senate has approved without any controversy (as opposed to the 5 or 6 that have made the news), I am sure that many of them are opposed to abortion. So it's a big issue over not much.

 

And anyway, what the Democrats are doing is no different than what the Republicans do. Under Clinton, the Republican-controlled Senate disapproved several nominations for administrative positions and ambassadorships. I remember they did not approve one guy to be ambassador to some little county (Luxembourg, maybe?) because he was gay. I also remember they did not approve someone for civil rights director because he favored affirmative action. So I don't think the Republican side has any basis to complain -- and I also don't think anyone is being disapproved because of their religious beliefs.

 

On the larger issue of whether Christians are being "discriminated against": This a whole trendy thing now, I know there is at least one book out making this claim (by Rush Limbaugh's brother, David) and I hear about it on a conservative talk radio station (WABC New York) all the time. My question would be, since at least 90 percent of the country is Christian, and Christians make up large majorities in Congress and every other branch of government... who exactly is doing the discriminating? Are Christians discriminating against themselves?

[Rooster7]

At its root, every law - from jaywalking to murder, has a moral basis. At its root, every person - from an atheist to a conservative Christian, has a source for his or her moral basis.

 

It shouldn't matter how a jurist feels about a controversial issue or even he or she takes a public stance. What matters is whether or not he or she will hold up the law as it is written and/or interpret it reasonably per the Constitution.

 

To query candidates about abortion is wrong. It is a religious litmus test. The fact is, nearly every conservative Christian believes abortion is morally wrong. Regardless, that does not mean he or she will make findings or rulings that are un-Constitutional. It does not even mean that pro-abortion laws will be overturned. It simply means that the candidate subscribes to a certain set of beliefs. Democrats are telling this country that those people who subscribe to that set of beliefs (i.e., conservative Christians, Orthodox Jews, etc.) are unfit to be federal judges. Abortion is the issue of the day. Tomorrow it will be another. No one can predict what a jurist will do merely because he posses a certain religious faith. Yet people of various religious faiths are being penalized for embracing the beliefs taught to them. Liberals who proclaim otherwise are merely propagandizing in order to achieve their own political ends - even if it means circumventing the Constitution.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)