Catholics Need Not Apply?

NRO ^ | July 30, 2003 | Byron York

[goldstategop]

Democrats and the liberal special interest groups ARE hostile to religious faith. And they believe people with traditional values, whether Catholic or not, need not apply for a position on the federal bench. If any one's applying a litmus test to judges, its the Democrats and the liberal special interest groups who want to block the ascendancy of conservatives to the federal judiciary. They're angry because deep down, they know its true.

[laweeks]

The "Stupid Party" will cave into the anti-Catholic/Christian/Judeo Democrats. Nothing will happen. It's as if the Democrats were still in control. Republicans have NO fire in their bellies. Kiss off these appointments. There'll be a lot of harrumping, but nothing will happen.

[spokeshave]

But Hatch was adamant. "This has been investigated out the wazoo," he said. "It's time to vote."

Nuke em all up the Wazoo

[wideawake]

Good for Sessions.

Durbin and Leahy should be ashamed that a Reformed Christian knows more about the Catholic magisterium than they do.

[CCCV]

They accused Priscilla Owen of being a judicial activist.
Hello pot, meet kettle? Amazing that they could do that with a straight face!
Bill Pryor is one of the most ardent supporters of the courts keeping the boundaries set by the Constitution that I know of.
He is just plain a good man. Morally straight. A plain, honest speaker. I doubt if you would see any double talk from him.

[pogo101]

Although the Post and the complaining Dems are correct -- for surely the Dems would stomp/filibuster/etc. a nominee who was, for example, an atheist but who also believed that Roe was a terrible constitutional decision -- they do not come to the Court of Public Opinion with clean hands. It is they who chose to make a litmus test of a nominee's view of Roe; and it flows from that decision that they MUST block any Catholic who is observant on that point of doctrine.

[sgtbono2002]

Wouldnt it be great to see Teddy Kennedy excommunicated for advocating the murder of the unborn? Of course it wont happen, the Catholic church gave him an annullment from the woman he turned into a drunk so he could marry again. The Church goes out of its way to keep the Kennedys happy , Must be the money. As a Catholic since birth I see many things the church that dont make sense. Birth control for instance , If catholics were excommunicated for practicing birth control ,there wouldnt be enough of them left to hold a good Mass. No teddy doesnt have to worry about being thrown out. Murder, dumping his wife, advocating abortion, drunkeness,Lying in an application for annullment, nothing matters, He is a Kennedy.

[maryz]

Asked whether Priscilla Owen is being filibustered because of anti-Catholic bias, Rushton said, "With her, it was more that she was accused of being a judicial activist — and being pro-business."

Am I remembering wrong? I thought she had upheld a Texas law perceived as threatening the ol' right to choose.

[steve8714]

You can't beat these guys playing nice, and they will never be your friend, or vote in the public interest over their party constituencies.

[anoldafvet]

What puzzles me in all of this is why Catholics and Jews for that matter, keep voting democRAT? I think I read somewhere where these are their biggest constituencies. As a catholic myself, I can't believe these people can't see the writing on the wall.

[Ronin]

Abortion is the ONLY issue that will trigger a judicial fillibuster. They might cloak it by saying the nominee is "pro-big-business" or find some other wild charge, but that's just a smoke screen for their real fear.

[Ronin]

It's a mystery to me as well and I am neither Catholic or Jewish.

[syriacus]

The Democrats are hilarious as they try frantically to run away from their decades of prying into the religious beliefs of some people.

• Leahy held a panel discussion on the importance of separating Church and state. Who were his speakers? Religious leaders from Churches and synagogues. When he introduced them, he identified the faiths they belonged to.
• Durbin spoke of discussing his beliefs on abortion with his church's elders. But Durbin is a Catholic, so his church's leaders are normally called priests, bishops, and cardinals, not elders.
• Leahy had heard Ashcroft testify that he was asked by Senators ‘Will your religion keep you from being able to perform your duties in office?’" This contradicts the argument by Democrats that ONLY NOW are Republicans injecting religion into the Senate deliberations about candidates.
• Religion is the last refuge of extremists,” said Durbin. And here are the words of that extremist, Hillary Clinton

  The pattern of actions we are watching is troubling," Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, said in an interview. "It's one thing to have a political perspective, which all of us do. But we are going to be in trouble in this country if we start moving toward theology-based science or ideological research."

It's time for Democrats to argue the issues and prove their points instead of prolonging the three decades long accusation that pro-lifers are forcing their religious beliefs on others.

[PMCarey]

As a Catholic since birth I see many things the church that dont make sense. Birth control for instance...

Read Humanae Vitae and you'll be amazed at how prophetic Pope Paul VI was.

[agrace]

But Hatch was adamant. "This has been investigated out the wazoo," he said. "It's time to vote."

LOL! I would have loved to hear Orrin say "out the wazoo."

And it is hardly "wildly inappropriate" as the Wash Post claimed. It is wildly OBVIOUS that a pro-life stance - and thereby its religious basis - gets the reject button, every single time.

[agrace]

I can't speak for the Jews, but as a Christian I can speculate on the Catholics, well, more like Christians in general - lots of nominals out there I'd say. I could probably name a dozen people who would call themselves Christians if asked but have no real idea what that means on a personal level, and if informed of such would have absolutely no intention of adhering to it!

[Bonesman]

This would actually be a very interesting Constitutional challenge to the Senate filibuster of conservative or pro-life candidates. The Constitution specifically states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Art. VI, Sec. 3)

If one can demonstrate that abortion is a religious issue, i.e. that religious conviction is a determining factor in one's position on that issue, it might be possible to equate the Democrat filibuster with the application of a "religious test" for judiciary candidates. Thus, the filibuster would presumably be unconstitutional, and could be overridden by a court.

This is just a thought, but it might work if conservatives could convince a judicial candidate to challenge on those grounds.

Cordially,
Bonesman

[Tacis]

Hasn't Grand Exaulted Kleagle Byrd, long-time Klan Knight of The Mystic Shrine, invoked one of the basic, nay, cardinal rules of the KKK and ordered that all faithful democrats oppose all Catholics for the federal bench? Next to hating blacks (screw off Sharpton!), the democratics hate Catholics. Sure they TOLERATE Irish Catholics, but you'll never see another Catholic dem in the White House. Why would Republicans defend the bad guys on this? The democrats don't want Catholics on the federal bench and will blackball every one that is nominated. It is clear and obvious to all observers.

[Rome2000]

it might be possible to equate the Democrat filibuster with the application of a "religious test" for judiciary candidates.

Only if the GOP has the stones to pursue it.

Not likely, unfortunately.

The RNC has a poor track record when it comes to fighting fire with fire.