Posted on 08/04/2003 9:33:09 AM PDT by hinterlander
Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) was quoted July 27 in the New York Times saying that "the left is trying to enforce an anti-religious litmus test" in which "nominees who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines, as a matter of personal faith, are unqualified for the federal bench in the eyes of the liberal Washington interest groups."
Hatch’s remarks appear to be part of a sustained strategy by Republicans. The idea is to expose Senate Democrats as religiously intolerant in light of their efforts to block a number of President Bush’s appellate court nominees who are either Catholic (Miguel Estrada, California Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl and Alabama Atty. Gen. Bill Pryor) or Southern Christians (Federal District Judge Charles Pickering, who is a Baptist, and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, an Episcopalian described as "a devoted Sunday school teacher" in a complimentary Dallas Morning News article).
HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso went to Capitol Hill to ask senators if Hatch is right.
SEN. DANIEL AKAKA (D.-HAWAII): This is on abortion? Well, what he was saying was, these court nominees are being filibustered basically because they have certain religious beliefs on abortion.
I don’t think so.
Senator, in your opinion, can anyone be fit to serve on the Supreme Court if he agrees with the pope that abortion should be illegal?
AKAKA: I would prefer someone who doesn’t have that much of an opinion. That they would absolutely have to agree with the pope? [Sen. Akaka shook his head "no."]
SEN. WAYNE ALLARD (R.-COLO.): I think he probably is. I believe that they are opposing him more because of religious beliefs than they are because of what kind of judge they’d be, what kind of work they’d do on the bench. I think that’s abhorrent. I think he’s right.
SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D.-WASH.): Isn’t Hatch the one who brought up what the nominee’s religion was?
In the hearing. Is Hatch right that anyone who openly adheres to Catholic and Baptist doctrines on abortion—is there a litmus test against such nominees?
CANTWELL: Senator Hatch raised the question of the person’s religion. I think the Republicans are the people who are raising questions about people’s religion.
But as far as preventing someone from being confirmed because he agrees with, say, the pope on abortion—
CANTWELL: I think the Republicans are raising religion as an issue.
SEN. TOM HARKIN (D.-IOWA): Well, what I objected to, I just heard this the other day—the reproduction of his voice—Hatch asking a witness what his religion was. I’ve been in Congress 29 years, and I’ve never heard anyone ever ask anyone what their religion was. And to me, that’s just not right. You should not ask people their religion. And then he said, are you a practicing Catholic, or, do you adhere to the faith, something like that. I mean, it’s so far out of bounds, it has no place in our deliberations. But I just think Senator Hatch, who’s a good friend of mine, was way out of bounds on that one. That’s the kind of thing that could just degenerate—this whole place could degenerate. There shouldn’t be any religious questions or religious tests at all.
Senator, in your opinion, can anyone be fit to serve on the Supreme Court who publicly agrees with the pope on abortion, that it should be illegal?
HARKIN: Illegal? Or immoral?
The pope says it should be prohibited by law
HARKIN: I don’t think the pope said that. I am a Catholic, and the pope has not said that.
In Evangelium Vitae—the document, The Gospel of Life.
HARKIN: That has to do with belief and moral teachings; it has nothing to do with legality.
He wrote, actually, that public policy makers should—he had instructions for that.
HARKIN: No. You’re way off base. Sorry, David. You’re just off base on that one. I mean, it’s one thing about religious teaching and religious adherence, but that has nothing to do with the laws—the laws of our country or any other country.
[Note: In the Gospel of Life (1995), the pope wrote: "In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it’ . . . . This task is the particular responsibility of civil leaders. . . .they have a duty to make courageous choices in support of life, especially through legislative measures."]
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R.-UTAH): I said the outside groups are. But worst of all, that influences people on the inside. But that’s vicious stuff. I don’t think anybody watching the affair would disagree with that. . . . I don’t find fault with Senator Schumer—he cares deeply about that kind of stuff. I don’t really find fault with my colleagues, but they are influenced by these outside groups, and they’re just vicious. And they’re well-heeled. These far-left liberal groups—and far-left liberal people are supporting them to the tune of millions of dollars. I’m a bit disappointed in the conservative side. They’re not putting their money where their mouth is. Take People for the American Way—that’s estimated at anywhere between $12 and $13 million dollars a year, mostly Hollywood cash and big business. There isn’t anything on the Republican side that will keep it close.
SEN. DANIEL INOUYE (D.-HAWAII): He didn’t say that, did he?
He did, actually. Almost word for word.
INOUYE: That’s just like saying we’re anti-Catholic because we voted against that Catholic person. That committee’s made up of four Catholic Democrats. They take it as seriously as anyone else. To inject religion into a discussion of this sort—I am surprised.
Do you believe that anyone can be fit to serve on the Supreme Court who publicly agrees with the pope that abortion should be illegal?
INOUYE: Well, but I hope that as a judge he will keep an open mind, not go in there with pre-conceived ideas.
What about someone with the opposite pre-conceived idea?
INOUYE: Same thing.
SEN. ZELL MILLER (D.-GA.): I think that some people will probably interpret it that way.
Do you think they’d be wrong?
MILLER: Do I think what?
That they’d be wrong to interpret it that way?
MILLER: I don’t know. I’m not that close to it.
Senator, in your opinion, can anyone be fit to serve on the Supreme Court, for example, if he publicly says he agrees with the pope on abortion?
MILLER: Religion and politics ought not get mixed up.
But if he has that opinion, say, and expresses it at some point, does that mean that that person is toast, so to speak, as far as judicial nominations go?
MILLER: I would hope not. It’s supposed to be about how you’ll interpret the law, not what your religion is.
SEN. BILL NELSON (D.-FLA.): I don’t have any comment. I don’t really understand his comment.
Senator, from your own point of view, do you think that anyone can be fit to serve on the Supreme Court if he publicly says he agrees with the pope on abortion, that it should be illegal
NELSON: I’m going to judge each person individually by what I think their credentials are, their temperaments, and I’m going to make my judgment on that basis.
David Freddoso is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.