Slate: The Political Advantages Of Catholic Justices

William Saletan writing for Slate asks (and attempts a feeble answer to) the question "Why Catholics?" when it comes to Republican judicial nominations:

Three hours after President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, a conservative "Catholic-based advocacy organization" fired a warning shot at liberals. "Given the likelihood of a vigorous debate, we remain steadfast in our insistence upon a fair and dignified process free of any attack on Judge Alito's Catholic faith and personal beliefs," said the group's president. "Early attacks by left wing interest groups are particularly worrisome."

As evidence of the early attacks on Alito's faith, the group pointed to ... nothing. The only basis for alleging an anti-Catholic inquisition was the uproar over Alito's defense of abortion restrictions. This is the GOP's new victim shtick: Nominate pro-lifers to the courts; brag that they're simply upholding abortion laws favored by a majority of voters; and when liberals complain, accuse them of attacking a religious minority.

***
Two years ago, Republicans found a new way to play victim. They were trying to get Bill Pryor, the attorney general of Alabama, confirmed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Pryor had called Roe v. Wade an "abomination" that had led to "slaughter." Such rhetoric, according to Democrats, suggested that Pryor was incapable of subordinating his moral convictions to constitutional law. A well-connected conservative lobby, the Committee for Justice, fired back with ads depicting a warning on a courthouse door: "Catholics need not apply." The ads accused senators of attacking Pryor's " 'deeply held' Catholic beliefs."

In truth, no opposing senator had mentioned Pryor's Catholicism. The inference was drawn purely from questions about his sharp moral rhetoric. Republican senators took the campaign further, suggesting that criticism of judges who supported abortion restrictions was inherently anti-Catholic. Unlike the old charge of anti-Christian bigotry, anti-Catholic bigotry sounded plausible. For one thing, less than one-fourth of the U.S. adult population was Catholic. For another, Catholics have historically been excluded from high office in this country. Of the first 54 U.S. Supreme Court justices, only one was Catholic. Not until the 1890s did others arrive, and not until 1960 did we elect the first Catholic president. Twenty years ago, only one justice was Catholic. The rest were Protestants.

In 1986, all that began to change. President Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy to the court. The first President Bush appointed Clarence Thomas along with David Souter, an Episcopalian. President Clinton appointed two Jews: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. The second President Bush appointed John Roberts and nominated Alito. If Alito is confirmed, Catholics will hold five of the court's seats, and the Protestant contingent will have dwindled from eight to two. The notion that bigotry is keeping Catholics off the court is becoming numerically preposterous. Politically, that's no accident. Catholic voters have become the top target of Republican courtship.

[More]

My Comments:
Pure B.S. Of course, Saletan is full of it when he claims that "no opposing senator had mentioned [judicial nominee William] Pryor's Catholicism" and implies that the Republicans somehow imagined that Democrat senators were attacking Pryor's " 'deeply held' Catholic beliefs." And he's just flat-out untruthful when he states that "Republican senators took the campaign further, suggesting that criticism of judges who supported abortion restrictions was inherently anti-Catholic."

It was the Democrats, led by Sen. Chuckie Schumer, who questioned whether Pryor's "deeply held religious beliefs" made him incapable of being an impartial jurist. And just what were those "deeply held religious beliefs"? Why, Pryor had the audacity to actually believe the teachings of his Roman Catholic Faith. It was the Democrats who raised questions regarding whether Pryor's fidelity to the Church's doctrine on abortion made him unfit to serve on the Federal Judiciary.

The Republicans weren't "playing victim" as Saletan suggests. Rather, they were responding to the outrageous Schumer Doctrine, which would exclude otherwise qualified conservative nominees from the bench simply because they have "deeply held religious beliefs."