Byron York has a piece in NRO that gets into the issue of the fight over the nomination of Bill Pryor. York concludes that the GOP is finally going on the offense in regards to the Dems stalling on Bush’s judicial nominees.
In previous confirmation fights, Democrats have controlled the agenda and the course of debate by making a variety of allegations against the president’s judicial nominees. They accused Charles Pickering of racism. They accused Priscilla Owen of being a judicial activist. They accused Miguel Estrada of hiding his opinions on important legal matters. In each instance, Democrats played offense, and Republicans played defense.
The Pryor nomination began in the same way. At first, Democrats accused Pryor of being an extremist on abortion and other issues. Then they alleged that Pryor improperly sought political contributions for a group he helped create, the Republican Attorneys General Association. GOP senators, as they had many times in the past, found themselves defending a nominee by saying he was not an extremist and had not done anything wrong.
But then Republicans changed course. They leveled an accusation of their own against Democrats, accusing them of opposing Pryor because of his religious beliefs. Pryor is a Catholic who opposes Roe v. Wade both on constitutional grounds and because he believes that abortion is morally wrong. In recent weeks, Republicans accused Democrats of using coded language when questioning whether Pryor’s "deeply held beliefs" would interfere with his judgment on the bench. Such language, Republicans said, was in fact an indirect way of condemning Pryor for being a faithful Catholic. That, Republicans concluded, amounted to a virtual religious test for judges, something forbidden by the Constitution.
It is clear that the Democrats have established a litmus test for judicial nominees. If you do not support abortion on demand, you’re an "extremist". If you have religious faith, you’re also an "extremist". Never mind the fact that 45% of the American population identified themselves as "pro-life" in a recent Gallup survey. Never mind that Pryor has a history of being perfectly able to separate his religious beliefs from his obligation to uphold the law.
Judicial nominations are designed to determine if a judge is fit to sit on the federal bench – not to stop nominees who happen to disagree with the minority opinion. One can be opposed to Roe v. Wade on purely constitutional grounds. The decision in that case rests on a view of the Constitution that can easily be attacked as an overreach of federal power. However, the Democrats are not exercising due consideration, they’re engaging in a childish partisan game.
However, this game is going to backfire on the Democrats. The issue of judicial nominations brought many Republicans to the polls in 2002, and if the Democrats continue to stall it will bring even more in 2004. Now that the GOP is showing some backbone, the Democrats are getting a taste of their own medicine. They’ve been content to describe Republicans as "extremists" and "bigots" for years, even if their views are shared by a large minority or even a majority of the American public. Now the Democrats are finding that they’re on the other side of that coin, and they’re becoming even more hostile and bitter than before.
The larger strategy for the GOP should be to continue to push the Democrats on these and other issues as much as they can. The more Democrats who go on the record and describe commonly-held beliefs as "extreme" the more voters they will alienate. The more they stand in front of TV cameras and whine like a toddler whose mother won’t give them a lolly, the more childish they look. The dirtier they have to fight, the dirtier they look.
If the GOP continues on this strategy and doesn’t chicken out, they could have the Democrats hang themselves on their own rope. Then again, the GOP hasn’t yet learned the fine art of playing political hardball, so it’s anyone’s guess if they will be able to keep the pressure up.
If you have religious faith, you’re also an “extremist”.
Well, do you think it’s coincidence that the vast majority of extremeists are people of religious faith? I sure don’t.
The vast majority of extremists are also bipeds. I guess we need to prevent bipeds from serving in public office as well then.
Or how about this: most people in prison are black, so that means that all blacks are criminals, right? After all, the exact same justification you used was the same to justify Jim Crow laws in the South.
Atheists represent only a small fraction of the world’s population, and to smear everyone with religious faith as an extremist is bigotry, plain and simple. Furthermore, if you think atheists can’t be bigots, you forget that the two most bloody regimes in recent history (Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia) were both regimes founded on atheism.
Atheists represent only a small fraction of the world’s population
An elite minority, to be sure. What’s most interesting is that while they represent such a small fraction (10% or so) of the populaton at large, they represent less than 1% of the prison population.
Fascinating, don’t you think?
Or how about this: most people in prison are black, so that means that all blacks are criminals, right?
Of course, what’s at issue here is not his race or his religion, but his actions. But religious belief is unique in that it’s a perscription for action. When you’re asking a judge to potentially rule from something he believes, what he believes becomes all too relevant.
Furthermore, if you think atheists can’t be bigots, you forget that the two most bloody regimes in recent history (Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia) were both regimes founded on atheism.
Hitler’s Germany was founded on Lutheranism (or at least presented in the guise), with most of their atrocities approved by the Catholic Church. Stalin’s Russia was a regime founded on a religion with himself at the head.
But religious belief is unique in that it’s a perscription for action.
I can argue that negative actions are committed by people who do not follow religion (ie, turning the other cheek, etc) as its meant to be followed.
Stalin’s Russia was a regime founded on a religion with himself at the head.
That silly. So a rich atheist is not really an atheist since one might claim that he worships money, right?
No such thing as “hardball” in the GOP vocabulary, right? After all, they so cordially rubber-stamped every one of Clinton’s judicial nominations, how could anyone expect a fight when the tables are turned?
Jay, you say that “smearing anyone with religious faith as an extremist is bigotry.” What does that make your statement discounting Tom Daschle’s Catholic faith?
Monkey, following the Christian tradition of “turning the other cheek” is the purest form of pacifism. I don’t quite understand how the “real Christians” (as opposed to “Catholic in name only Tom Daschle”) can say they’re being true to their faith while simultaneously embracing the neoconservate “diplomacy by war” foreign policy of this administration.
I can argue that negative actions are committed by people who do not follow religion (ie, turning the other cheek, etc) as its meant to be followed.
You may wish to Google for “The True Scotsman Fallacy”. You’ve just committed it.
Anyway, the people who take the negative actions could just as well argue that it is you who is not following the religion as it is meant to be followed. Who is to decide? Why don’t we let the actions of those who profess to believe speak for themselves?
So a rich atheist is not really an atheist since one might claim that he worships money, right?
Stalin’s regime didn’t deny the supernatural so much as co-opt its ritual and trappings in worship of Stalin.
If a rich atheist makes altars to money and puts its icon in every room of his house, then he could be said to be worshipping money. But merely having money is no indication that you worship it. Stalin forced worship of himself. Or do you have a different view?
If a rich atheist makes altars to money and puts its icon in every room of his house, then he could be said to be worshipping money. But merely having money is no indication that you worship it.
Sure. One can argue that million dollar homes, $200k cars and diamonads are nothing more then altars/icons to that religion.
As for Stalin – he was demented. Not a good example. And as for prison popuption numbers, I don’t know your sources, but I would be curious to know the % of those prisoners who found religion IN prison.
You may wish to Google for “The True Scotsman Fallacy”. You’ve just committed it.
Not true. Where is it written that no true scotsman would like sugar? When it comes to religion, on the other hand – what we are witnessing is not following what is preached.
"Well, do you think it’s coincidence that the vast majority of extremeists are people of religious faith? I sure don’t."
Have you been introduced to the fallacy of composition?
BTW, statistics have shown that regular churchgoers are several times less likely to commit crimes, tend to have higher incomes, and vote regularly. If you’re trying to prove that religion is someone correlated with extremist behavior, you’ll quickly find that the evidence is against you.
Anti-Christian (and anti-religious) bias seems to be the racism of the 21st Century.
When it comes to religion, on the other hand – what we are witnessing is not following what is preached.
Preached according to who? You don’t think that abortion clinic bombers honestly and truly believe that the Bible says that abortion is so wrong that they should kill to stop it? Just as you thought that Saddam’s regime was so bad we should kill to put an end to it?
The problem with your argument is that those people can just as well tell you that it is you who is not following what has been preached. What the religion exactly perscribes is entirely up to the interpretation of the individual believer. There’s no validity to an argument of “well, they’re not a true believer”.
BTW, statistics have shown that regular churchgoers are several times less likely to commit crimes, tend to have higher incomes, and vote regularly.
That may very well be. Religion has an awesome transformative power for good. But it also has a flip side – a power to unleash evil in the name of spiritual good.
I don’t think it’s coincidence that all the major terror groups we’ve declared “war” on are religious groups. I’m not trying to say that all religion is bad – merely, that religion can be a wild card – a loose cannon – and thus, the religious beliefs of public officals – especially ones in a potential position to establish social policy – bear scrutiny.
You don’t think that abortion clinic bombers honestly and truly believe that the Bible says that abortion is so wrong that they should kill to stop it?
I thought the Bible says though shall not kill?
What the religion exactly perscribes is entirely up to the interpretation of the individual believer.
This is not religion specific then. Same can be said for personal behavior. Atheists rationalize their own deeds according to their personal “bible”, no?
merely, that religion can be a wild card…
And atheism is not?
I thought the Bible says though shall not kill?
That one sure gets obeyed a lot…
I thought the Bible says though shall not kill?
Maybe you’d like to read a little closer: it actually says “You shall not commit murder.” (At least in my translation. Which brings up another problem…) What murder is, of course, is not defined in the bible. Generally it’s not considered murder to kill in defense of others, correct? So blowing up baby-killers isn’t really wrong according to the bible.
Atheists rationalize their own deeds according to their personal “bible”, no?
If by “bible” you mean in the sense of a series of dogmatically held, unverifyable, unchanging beliefs from some external arbirary authority, no, they don’t. They rationalize their deeds according to observed and tested natural laws.
And atheism is not?
Actually, atheists display far more accord than among Christians. Atheists almost universally come to the conclusion that if what you’re doing can’t be proven to harm another person, then you should have free reign to do so.
As a result atheists don’t generally launch crusades or take drastic “wartime” actions. 0% of terrorists in this century have been atheists, you might notice.