Senate showdown set for judge pick

Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, July 6, 2004 | By Charles Hurt

[JohnHuang2]

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

Senate showdown set for judge pick

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 6, 2004

---

The biggest Senate showdown in more than a year over a judicial nominee is scheduled for today in a debate billed as a trial run for the fight over the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.
    It could also be the first -- and high-profile -- outright defeat of one of President Bush's judicial nominees on the Senate floor.
    All the more remarkable is that the nominee, Arkansas lawyer J. Leon Holmes, is named to federal district court, which sees virtually no contentious nomination battles. Each of Mr. Bush's six filibustered nominees have been named to the higher federal appeals courts.
    Democrats have assailed Mr. Holmes, a Catholic, for past religious writings on women's "subordinate" role in marriage and other subjects. Republicans accuse Democrats of being "anti-Catholic" and say Mr. Holmes is being targeted owing to his opposition to abortion.
    The fight over the 17-month-old nomination has made some odd allies and enemies in the Senate.
    Supporting Mr. Bush's nominee are Arkansas' two Democratic senators, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. Meanwhile, Republicans including Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas have refused to announce support for Mr. Holmes and have been accused by some conservatives of working to actually thwart him.
    Mr. Specter, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, has been criticized by conservatives for reportedly lobbying Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both Maine Republicans, and Sen. Lincoln Chaffee , Rhode Island Republican, to vote against Mr. Holmes.
    It is Republican opponents -- rather than Democrats -- who have stalled Mr. Holmes' nomination since his hearing before the Judiciary Committee 15 months ago.
    At the center of opponents' case against Mr. Holmes is an article he and his wife co-authored for a church publication about the "historic Catholic teaching regarding the relation between male and female."
    In it, Mr. Holmes and his wife wrote that "the wife is to subordinate herself to the husband" and that "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man."
    Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, a Judiciary Committee member and also Catholic, asked Mr. Holmes about the statement regarding women. Mr. Holmes answered that it was a discussion of the historic theological teachings of the Catholic Church.
    "I will tell you -- as a person with a Catholic background -- that these are troubling statements for him to make," Mr. Durbin said. "Mr. Holmes' statements reflect a narrow view of Catholic theology and do not embody contemporary standards that should be followed by any federal judge in any state."
    Republicans defend Mr. Holmes, saying the lines about women are misconstrued when taken out of the context of the article, which they say is a theological discussion taken directly from letters written by the apostle Paul.
    "A vote against Holmes is a vote against St. Paul," one Republican said.
     Democrats strongly deny such charges of anti-religious bias. It was such a dispute during a photo session on the Senate floor last month that prompted Vice President Dick Cheney to reply with a barnyard epithet to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
    Tracy Schmaler, Democratic press secretary for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said a nominee's "religion never was and never should be used as a political football."
    "It's another baseless, late-inning smear cooked up by partisan Republicans hoping to score political points about one of the White House's most controversial nominees," she said. "There is bipartisan concern about the fitness of this nominee, and some are now launching wedge political attacks to distract the Senate and the public from this nominee's troubling record on civil rights, voting rights and women's rights."
    Others Republicans, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, say that Mr. Holmes' ardent opposition to abortion is the real reason his nomination is being opposed.
    Mr. Hatch and other Republican leaders have vowed to fight hard for the 50 votes they need to confirm Mr. Holmes. Unlike with filibustered nominees who require 60 votes in order to get a final vote, Democrats are confident enough that Mr. Holmes will be defeated that they agreed to move directly to a final confirmation vote, where a simple majority is needed for confirmation.
    Republican leadership has scheduled a vote Tuesday after six hours of floor debate. That length of debate is rare for any nominee and possibly unprecedented for a district court nominee.
    

[glorgau]

Well, if Hatch is fighting hard for him, the nomination is practially assured. Not.

[CyberAnt]

I heard Sen Hatch talking about this last Friday on the Hannity radio program. I wondered then what it was all about.

HAPPY 4TH to ya!!

[JohnHuang2]

Happy Fourth backatya :-)

[lizma]

In the past we mistakenly issued Irish need not apply, then Blacks need not apply. We look back at that with disgust.

But where is the uproar for again our society repeating prejudice and say no Catholic can apply.

I think we can begin to understand what was said about the Irish and the Blacks back then. If no one is sympathetic to your group, you're hosed.

Alas, but just wait 100 years from now we will carrying the Catholic banner. Well unless, we go Communist by then. Then all bets are off.

[YaYa123]

What's going on here?

Rumor has it, Kerry will announce his VP early this morning. Would he do it on the same day this senate process is going on?

As far as I can tell (from vivid memory), Edwards' only claim to Senate fame is how brutal and nasty he has been in trying to discredit and destroy Bush judicial nominees in committee. It's inconceivable to me Edwards could miss this floor fight, with cameras blaring. Equally unbelievable, that Kerry would miss another highly reported, important senate happening.

But wait!! This is a Catholic "thing", with voter implications. Maybe Kerry wants a good reason not to be there.

And I don't think Edwards is Kerry's choice anyway. What kind of leader would Daschle be to let 2 democrat senators miss this vote?

[JohnHuang2]

Good points...

[jimtorr]

"I will tell you -- as a person with a Catholic background -- that these are troubling statements for him to make," Mr. Durbin said. "Mr. Holmes' statements reflect a narrow view of Catholic theology and do not embody contemporary standards that should be followed by any federal judge in any state."

Tracy Schmaler, Democratic press secretary for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said a nominee's "religion never was and never should be used as a political football."

....and yet, Ms. Schmaler, Sen. Durbin feels free to instruct the entire federal judiciary on what their theology and "religous standards" should be.

[Conservative Infidel]

Maybe this is just what "our side" needs. It is my understanding that, with the Dem defections, we are only a very small number (2 - 5?) votes shy of these names coming to the senate floor. If sKerry picks another senator, that individual would also stop voting to campaign. That's 2 votes right there. Maybe we can get some judges confirmed this summer...

[AmericaUnited]

President Bush and Senator Santorum ... I will never vote for this clown again

Both are good men. Let me guess... you're voting for NOBODY. What a loser!

[WhiteGuy]

"Republican leadership"


Heh heh heh.................

Good one.

[YaYa123]

I went to bed again, (at 4 am), sticking with my prediction, believing my instincts and the NYPost headline, that it would be Gebhardt. Woke up just a few minutes ago to find it's going to be Edwards. I'm shocked! really shocked!!! I was dead wrong on this.

This means Kerry bowed to the polls, not to the Clintons.

I think it means a harder fight for us. People really are swayed by style not substance, and I think a Kerry/Edwards ticket will strip away female voters. Edwards is all show, all personal ambition, but dang! He's a totally good lawyer, very persuasive, and if the media doesn't challenge Edwards, doesn't expose his empty suit, on the very impressive, but totally empty rhetoric, Edwards will hurt us.

Edwards is not the best choice should something to happen to Kerry....it's scary really, but the democrats are thrilled. I bet Susan Estrich is one happy talking head. And C-Span callers are out of their minds with glee.

Howlin, you were right on the mark early early this morning, doubting that NYPost online headline. Dang! I'm going back to bed.

[YaYa123]

in Pittsburg...Teresa's realm, not in Mass, his own state. Isn't it wierd?

Kerry said, "journey" the most hackneyed, over-used, trite, expression!! And he's appearing almost overcome with sincerity as far as the eye can see, his new grin and perfect make-up, perfectly applied.

It's as if he's speaking to the people of Pittsburg, not the entire country.

Representative Harold Ford, Jr. on C-Span...he's been on the Kerry team since way back last summer...he never faltered...he's going to be rewarded should Kerry win.

[SuzanneC]

Battleground state. Mass. is a sure thing, why waste the time. He IS speaking to the people of Pittsburg!!!

[AmericaUnited]

Do you always throw little temper tantrums in public?

Very funny. Yes, you may vote for who ever you want without having to ask your mommy.