Fidelis on Roberts Nomination: “Hearings Are Ripe For Anti-Religious Bigotry”
Hat tip: Catholics in the Public Square
From the Fidelis website:
WASHINGTON — Following the nomination of Judge John Roberts of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush to serve as Associate Justice for the United States Supreme Court, Fidelis warned Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senators Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold to keep anti-religious bigotry out of the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
“Judge Robert’s confirmation hearings are ripe for anti-religious bigotry,” said Fidelis President Joseph Cella. “Judge Roberts is a faithful Catholic, who is devoted to his wife and children. With the history of Catholic and Christian judicial nominees attacked because of their religious faith and family life in past Senate confirmation hearings, we call on Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Ranking Member Senator Patrick Leahy, Senators Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and Russ Feingold to prevent this vile brand of hate politics from entering this important process. Judge Roberts is an eminently qualified jurist, and his outstanding legal credentials and temperament should enable his confirmation prior to the Supreme Court reconvening on October 3. ”
Cella said: “We expect that Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearings must follow nothing less than the three-fold high standard of being responsible, civil and Constitutional. The statements by every Senator, Republican, Democrat or Independent about Judge Roberts will be watched. If any Senator crosses the line and attacks Judge Roberts because of his Catholic faith or family life, they will be held accountable.”
Fidelis recently completed their initial advertising campaign in the run-up to the Senate confirmation hearings. The print ads ran in Roll Call and in the Nevada Appeal, and a radio ad in Nevada, citing the role that anti-religious bigotry played in the Senate confirmation battle of Judge Bill Pryor.
The ads highlight anti-religious statements made by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Article VI of the United States Constitution states: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” which expressly prohibits such religious tests.
Cella said: “A judicial candidate’s promise to soundly interpret the Constitution is often not enough for many Senators. In order to disqualify a particular judicial candidate, some Senators have resorted to a quasi-inquisition of a candidate’s personal religious beliefs, and that cannot be tolerated. We will work with Catholics and all people of faith to defend Judge Roberts who will likely be attacked because of his faith and deeply-held beliefs,” Cella stated.
To learn more and view and hear the Fidelis ads, log onto www.fidelis.org.
Labels: Constitutional Jurisprudence, Judiciary, Law, Schumer Doctrine, Supreme Court
posted by Pro Ecclesia 10:01 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
I agree that Roberts' Catholicism is not fair game for these hearings. I wonder, though, where the line gets drawn between legitimate, responsible questions and Catholic-bashing ones.
What kinds of questions do you think should be off limits?
Local Man,
I think you ask a fair question, and there are certainly questions that could be borderline, but nevertheless legitimate.
I will draw the line by saying that there should be none of what went on during Bill Pryor's confirmation hearings, wherein it was suggested - no, not suggested, it was outright stated - that his "deeply held beliefs" (i.e. devout Catholic faith") might impugn his ability to apply and interpret the law in a "fair and objective manner".
That's what I have called the Schumer Doctrine.
I believe no questions should be asked of Judge Roberts that imply that his fairness and objectivity are any way impacted by his "deeply held personal beliefs", religious or otherwise.
Now, you may say that fairness and objectivity are the heart of what it means to be a judge, so such questions should not be off limits. Under other circumstances, I might agree with that; but in light of what the Democrats did to Judge Pryor, I think such questions are code for "this guy's a Papist".
Will,
You beat me to the punch!
Jay, I understand your point about not maligning a nominee's religious beliefs, but I think it would be fair to ask Roberts something like, "Do you have any personal beliefs that will prevent you from upholding the law?"
I don't know whether you'd find that question objectionable, but I think it's not reasonable to suggest that it's appropriate in some circumstances and not others.
Honestly, from what you've written, it appears to me that you're suggesting that any reference to Roberts' personal beliefs should be written off as anti-Catholic rhetoric. Is that what you mean? I have a feeling it's not.
And Will - didn't you recently accuse me of not answering your questions? I get it, you don't like Sen. Schumer. But what kinds of questions about "deeply held personal beliefs" do you find offensive? All of them? Or just those asked by Democrats?
Anyway, here's a potential approach: Since President Bush has remarked that wants someone in the Scalia/Thomas mold, why not gather some of their opinions (case law, articles, etc.) and ask Roberts what he thinks of them? Theoretically, that line of questioning would satisfy both sides of the aisle.
"Anyway, here's a potential approach: Since President Bush has remarked that wants someone in the Scalia/Thomas mold, why not gather some of their opinions (case law, articles, etc.) and ask Roberts what he thinks of them?"
I think it inappropriate to ask a nominee what he or she thinks about the outcome of a particular case, the opinion of a particular justice in a particular case, or the stated opinion of a particular justice on a particular issue of law.
However, it is entirely appropriate to ask a nominee what he or she thinks of a justice's particular approach or reasoning or judicial philosophy utilized in reaching a decision or writing an opinion. I know it seems like a nitpicking distinction, but it is an important one for the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
Outcomes are off-limits, processes by which outcomes are reached are fair game.
As an illustration of my last point, I think the following would be an entirely appropriate question to ask a nominee:
"What are your opinions regarding the reasoning used by Justice Blackmun and the majority in Roe v. Wade?"
To which an entirely appropriate answer would be something like this:
"Without addressing my view regarding the final outcome of Roe - since the likelihood of my having to rule on abortion-related cases in the future is quite high - let me say that the trimester formula adopted by the Court in Roe is unworkable for a variety of reasons ..."
It would also be appropriate to note that legal scholars of all stripes - right, left, etc. - have expressed reservations about the reasoning in Roe.
Another legitimate line of questioning is how the nominee feels about the doctrine of stare decisis.
To which an appropriate response is that stability requires some fealty to established precedent, but that in recent years the Court has lacked some consistency in its application of the doctrine in some cases while disregarding it in others. In short, although the doctrine of stare decisis is still valid, the Court seems to be unsure of how strictly to apply it.
I think it inappropriate to ask a nominee what he or she thinks about the outcome of a particular case, the opinion of a particular justice in a particular case, or the stated opinion of a particular justice on a particular issue of law.
You're probably right. It's unlikely he'd give a totally honest answer, anyway, if he disagreed with a particular opinion. He's not going to publicly criticize his future colleagues.
What about my "personal beliefs" question? Acceptable?
And I assume we can agree that if he's a Yankees fan, serious questions are raised about his fitness.
Local Man,
I just don't like "personal beliefs" questions because I think they're really getting at religion. The question could be phrased in terms of philosophy - judicial or otherwise.
But questioning about "personal beliefs" is, in my view, out of bounds.
Now, if a guy from Indiana turned out to be a Yankees fan, I'd oppose him on the basis of bandwagonism alone. Anybody who jumps on the bandwagon of the winner is not likely to be someone who is willing to rule on principal. :)
Local Man said:
"... I think it would be fair to ask Roberts something like, 'Do you have any personal beliefs that will prevent you from upholding the law?'"
Depending on the context in which it is asked, I think that question - without follow-up into particular personal beliefs - could be fair game. A judge should be able to "uphold the law" regardless of personal beliefs to the contrary.
Post a Comment
<< Home