Replies

Interesting tactic, blaming the Democrats' religious test on Republicans.

So, Senator Cantwell, according to this train of thought, Senate Democrats could implement a test requiring judicial nominees to deny the doctrine of transubstantiation (a fundamental Catholic doctrine), yet it would be Republicans who would be at fault for pointing out that Democrats had adopted a religious test that violates the Constititution?

Tasty Manatees

bump for later reading

I think Republicans are turning over the rock the Democrats are hiding under, by exposing the Democrats' sneaky religious tests of candidates for public office.

Maybe no senator asked Ashcroft what particular religion he belonged to, but they did question him about his religious life.

Faith in Justice: The Ashcroft Fight by Mark Silk, [excerpt]

Of course, the Constitution’s ban on religious tests for office does not prohibit anyone—even senators—from voting, or mobilizing votes, on the basis of religion. But the ban casts a moral penumbra such that doing so strikes most Americans as un-American or, at the very least, something not to be discussed in mixed company.
Nonetheless, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not get the answer he expected when he asked whether Ashcroft had heard any senator "suggest there should be a religious test on your confirmation."
Replied [Ashcroft] , "No senator has said ‘I will test you.’ But a number of senators have said to me, ‘Will your religion keep you from being able to perform your duties in office?’"
To which Leahy replied, "All right, well, I’m amazed at that."
Nor were senators alone in thinking out loud that Ashcroft’s religion might pose a problem.
Before the hearings began, the Interfaith Alliance, a seven-year-old liberal religious group designed as a counterweight to the religious right, urged senators to ask the nominee whether his faith might make him intolerant of "faith groups that he clearly judges to be wrong and in need of correction."
Coming out against confirmation on January 23, the New York Times charged Ashcroft with "a radical propensity for offering constitutional amendments that would bring that document into alignment with his religious views."

Where the Dems are going wrong here is they are attacking him for his "strongly held beliefs", and not on account of his judicial record. As a judge, Pryor has always voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, and has testified that he would continue to follow the mandate of the Supreme Court on Roe, as a federal appellate judge. Of course, that is no big deal since he has no choice. Appellates judges do not have the power to overrule Roe, and must follow the Supreme Court's mandate. So the Dems cannot attack him for his record, and have nothing else to attack him on other than his personal beliefs. And they admit that the reason they oppose him is because of his beliefs. That is what opens them to the charge of religious bigotry.

It is necessary to excerpt articles, with the exception of those covered by the WP/LAT exclusion (Post-Newsweek affiliates, and Tribune Company affiliates). Here is the entire article:

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. Hatch said liberals are imposing "an anti-religious litmus test" against appellate court nominees "who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines" on abortion. Is Hatch 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. Hatch said liberals are imposing "an anti-religious litmus test" against appellate court nominees "who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines" on abortion. Given what’s happened with the Pryor nomination, do you believe that Hatch is right?

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. Hatch was quoted in the New York Times saying that liberals are imposing "an anti-religious litmus test" against appellate court nominees "who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines" on abortion. Is Hatch 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. Hatch said liberals are imposing "an anti-religious litmus test" against appellate court nominees "who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines" on abortion. Is Hatch right to say that?

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."]

----------------------

Senator, you said that liberals are imposing "an anti-religious litmus test" against judicial nominees—

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. Hatch said liberals are imposing "an anti-religious litmus test" against appellate court nominees "who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines" on abortion. Is Hatch right?

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. Hatch was quoted in the New York Times that liberals are imposing "an anti-religious litmus test" against appellate court nominees "who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines" on abortion. Is Hatch right?

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. Orrin Hatch was quoted in the New York Times that liberals are imposing "an anti-religious litmus test" against appellate court nominees "who openly adhere to Catholic and Baptist doctrines" on abortion. Is Hatch right?

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.

We need to remember that during the Ashcroft nomination, USA Today ran an article asking, "Can a committed Christian hold public office?," and the motive for that question was the same motive that underlies the Democrats' hostility to Pryor et al. The Republicans are raising a legitimate question.

For sure they have an anti-religion litmus test--but more--conservative religious values test.

It's OK with them to label yourself anything religious as long as you act like Shrillery and Dillbo.

Cantwell sounds like a programmed android with those reponses of hers.

Has anyone asked Schumer if his beliefs as a Mason influence his politics?

Freemasonry Supports Religion. Freemasonry is far from indifferent toward religion. Without interfering in religious practice, it expects each member to follow his own faith and to place his Duty to God above all other duties. Its moral teachings are acceptable to all religions.

I wonder if Hillary envies Chuck's Masonry.