No, Sen. Santorum, Catholics aren’t a protected class

The Hill ^ | 8/6/03 | Josh Marshall

[TastyManatees]

Marshall should be ashamed himself for this hack work. I just placed a response to Marshall's two arguments on TastyManatees.com. The link below will take you there.

Tasty Manatees

[Free_at_last_-2001]

I'm sure we heard this sort of "logic" before when they were defending the choice of slavery.

[paguch]

Marshal misses the point that most of the Democrats opposing Catholic appointees are "former" Catholics. They are protesting the fact that anyone would question their right to be aggressive opponents of "their" church and their right to defy their religion and the Pope.
Who are they? Kennedy, Leahy, Biden, Daschle, Kerry etc.

[arkfreepdom]

The anger by the dims over this must mean they felt the sting. Not their usual laugh-at-the-pubs response.

[Paul Atreides]

I don't know if Dims are specifically anti-Catholic. I think they pretty much have it in for anyone who loves Jesus. Anyone except abortionists and homosexuals distorting His Word.

[Callahan]

Don't try to filibuster this dopey "gambling in the casino" article or Josh will go into hiding with the Texas Democrats.

[OPS4]

He should of said Anti-Christ, then all would agree!

Ops4 God Bless America!

[Free_at_last_-2001]

I'm sure we heard this sort of "logic" before when they were defending the choice of slavery. - yes here we go!

The great principle is the right of everyone to judge and decide for himself, whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil for them to adopt it; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, the right of free judgement upon the question is dearer to every true American than any other under a free government. ... It is no answer to this argument to say that [it] is an evil and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves.

This quote is from Stephen Douglas, and he said it in 1858. He was running for re-election to the Senate, and he was debating Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln said that slavery was evil and should be abolished.

(Taken from http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/douglas.htm)

[My2Cents]

three of President Bush’s most hard-line conservative judicial nominees

Translation: People who respect the U.S. Constitution.

[Tabi Katz]

Some argue that the president should be able to nominate judges who share his or her judicial philosophy without that much Senate meddling. But no one thinks that anything is untoward or bigoted about raising those issues or voting down judicial nominees on that basis.

---

The key here, Mr. Marshall, is "voting down" - not thwarting the majority by preventing a vote. That's called obstruction.

[OPS4]

Jesus would never agree with Abortion, Gay activism,
or any of the crap that the dems are rolling out.

The dems are against any issue where a conservative
Christian view is at the front.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[kitkat]

Murder is murder, whether it's the killing of adults, or the killing of innocent, unborn babies.

Any society which harbors women who would kill their own children is destined to self-destruction.

[Tabi Katz]

Exactly. When did a judicial nominee's personal views on any issue become more important than his interpretation of the Constitution?

[Callahan]

Where would Democrats be without filibusters and other parliamentary means of gumming up the works?

[ex-snook]

"But that’s still no excuse for the ridiculous charges that Democrats are acting out of anti-Catholic bias or bigotry "

It is anti-Catholic bigotry or bias if someone adhering to Catholic beliefs is prevented from appointment to the Supreme Court, serving in the Armed Forces, in Congress, as President, or in any capacity for the United States.

[TastyManatees]

I would agree, ex-snook, but only in the case where the nominee is rejected solely on the basis of these beliefs, and has not been shown to be impartial, as in the case of William Pryor.

Tasty Manatees

[pgyanke]

When did a judicial nominee's personal views on any issue become more important than his interpretation of the Constitution?

This is the crux of the problem--and the difference between Dems and Pubs. It's an issue of projection... while strict construction nominees (primarily Pub nominees) seek to uphold the laws despite their personal views, "living" constitutionalists assume everyone bends the law to their will as they themselves do.

[Republican Red]

You forgot to copy the best part of the article...

Josh Marshall is editor of talkingpointsmemo.com. His column appears in The Hill each Wednesday. Email: jmarshall@thehill.com

This Catholic is going to let Mr. Marshall know what I think of his article.

[ex-snook]

"where the nominee is rejected solely on the basis of these beliefs, "

Well 'solely' is an out if Catholic beliefs are an element. Only belief in the Constitution should be on the table.

[TastyManatees]

Sorry about that, Republican Red.

Tasty Manatees- Marshall Response