Posted on 08/07/2003 6:01:13 PM PDT by rdf
"Indeed, it's hard to see how anyone who's ever had any dealings with Mr. Holmes, as we have, would have anything but respect for the man."
Familiarity breeds respect
from Arkansas Online THE DOG DAYS, they're called, this time of year when the days grow hotter and tempers shorter. It's a good time to sit back, have some iced tea, and think on why some political disputes don't ignite here in Arkansas. Sometimes both parties can even get behind the same nominee for the judiciary.
It can happen when the nominee is an Arkansan like James Leon Holmes. He's a natural for a judicial appointment, but his confirmation now has been held up for months, Which must be something of a record for a district judgeship.
What's the hold-up ? He's under attack from all the usual, vehement quarters with all the usual weapons-smears, accusations, quotes out of context, and general ill will. Why? Because of his strong religious beliefs, which include a deep respect for life and opposition to abortion. In short, he's flunked the national party's litmus test, sacrament, and summum bonum: an unquestioning faith in Roe v. Wade. Not only must a nominee recognize its legality but he must never, never question its morality.
Maybe if Mr. Holmes had just kept his convictions to himself, there would be no problem. But like any good citizen, he's spoken up, and that's what his critics can't forgive.
So they've gone rummaging through various statements he's made over the last couple of decades (and willingly provided his accusers) in search of something to hang him with. He quickly apologized for one 20-year-old boner he had forgotten. (Who of us doesn't say something stupid once in 20 years?) Another quote, from an article he and Mrs. Holmes co-wrote in 1997, was wrenched so far out of context you'd never guess it consisted of a few words extracted from a commentary on Ephesians. Or that the biblical verse cited about wives being submissive to their husbands is immediately preceded by an admonition to "be submissive to one another."
But as any smear artist knows, there's no need to go into detail if you can hang a man with a few unfairly isolated words of his own. Or of Scripture. And once the false impression is created, no amount of explanation may be enough to erase the misimpression. The moral of this story: It's not just religious folks who can be driven to extremes by their prejudices.
You can find the same unreasoning bias against nominees with religious conviction on the editorial page of the Washington Post, which has happily joined in savaging Mr. Holmes.
But up close and personal here in Arkansas, the agitprop out of the Beltway doesn't seem to be having much effect. Indeed, when it comes to Leon Holmes' nomination, there's been a show of bipartisan amity. This nominee of a Republican president has been supported by both Democratic senators, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. Which speaks well of their basic fairness. Why would they support Mr. Holmes' confirmation? Because they know him. They know him as an honorable advocate, a scholar learned in the law, and a man of character. And they know he would honor his oath as a judge to interpret the law impartially, whatever his personal beliefs.
These two senators haven't swallowed the caricature of Leon Holmes so assiduously spread by his ideologically driven opponents. Because in his case, familiarity breeds respect. Indeed, it's hard to see how anyone who's ever had any dealings with Mr. Holmes, as we have, would have anything but respect for the man.
YET BOTH senators from Arkansas still hang back when it comes to endorsing a similar nominee for the federal judiciary from Alabama. He's Bill Pryor, another Roman Catholic. Despite the Constitution's ban on any religious test for office, both senators from Arkansas have gone along with those who are holding Bill Pryor's beliefs against him-even though as attorney general of Alabama, General Pryor has upheld the law impartially. Maybe smears are just easier to credit when you don't know the victim very well.
What his critics really seem to have against Bill Pryor isn't so much his religious beliefs as his refusal to disavow them. Or disguise them. Or to grovel when quizzed about them. Which made his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee the other day refreshing. Bill Pryor refused to apologize for his moral conviction that abortion is wrong.
We were reminded of something Abraham Lincoln said in one of his debates with Judge Douglas: It was not enough, said Mr. Lincoln, for opponents of slavery like himself to agree that it was legal in certain jurisdictions; it was also demanded of them that they stop saying it was wrong, and that Abraham Lincoln could not do.
(Excerpt) Read more at declaration.net ...
Richard F.
the topic: PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN- What exactly does it mean?
Guest for the evening is Bill Murray of the Family Research Council
PLUS – A call from McClintock Campaign Headquarters!
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.