Wendy takes on...

...the blopic of the day and wins! (or just muses)

Thursday, April 24, 2003

 
...Senate confirmation hearings

I followed Mike's link to The Volokh Conspiracy to read what Mike thought to be a good analysis of Senator Santorum's comments (it was) and scrolled down to read about the Holmes nomination and religious descrimination.

James Leon Holmes is a nominee for federal judge facing Senate confirmation hearings. He has published his personal opinions opposed to abortion and has ruled to uphold Roe v. Wade. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to anyone that his nomination is being hotly debated.

First, an article in The Opinion Journal read:
Sens. Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin and others, in their zeal over abortion, are now attempting to screen out judicial candidates who take their faith seriously. Judiciary Democrats may not like Catholic doctrine, but to hold religious convictions against a nominee is a blatant violation of the Constitution, which provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Liberals have a knack for finding new rights in "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution, but this one is right there in the document itself.

I agree.

Volokh wrote in response:
...say that a President resolves to appoint anti-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Justices, and one of the people he nominates is anti-Roe because he's a devout Catholic. Is that religious discrimination? No, it's ideological discrimination -- the President favored the anti-Roe Catholic because he's anti-Roe, not pro-Catholic. If that's true of Presidents favoring anti-Roe candidates, then it's true of Senators opposing anti-Roe candidates.

I agree.

One of Volokh's readers wrote:
I think your comments are correct in general but wrong as to Holmes. The Democrats are critizing writings explicitly about religious subjects in religious publications. There is no allegation that his religious views on women have impacted his professional conduct. Indeed, the SJC has received testimonials from professional women he has interacted with attesting to how he has been supportive of them professionally. Thus, this case is very much as if a Catholic nominee said, "I believe that abortion is murder because the Pope says it is, but I also believe that it is constitutionally protected because the SCOTUS says it is and I will follow Roe fully", and the record actually supports the statement that the nominee will follow Roe. If Democrats refused to confirm because of the religious belief about Roe, wouldn't that be religious discrimination?

I agree.

This issue is so hard. I think that a person's record should trump personal ideologies. A rational human being will understand that he can't impose his moral convictions on others in a country where individual liberty is (in some circles, and on all the most important documents) cherished. A good judge will understand that his job is not to legislate, but to interpret existing laws. Therefore, I would support the Holmes nomination.

By the same logic, I supported the Ashcroft nomination. As a Senator he fought hard to restrict abortion. As a Senator, it was his job to legislate. As a law enforcement officer in Missouri, he respected laws protecting a woman's right to seek abortion, even though he was philosophically opposed. He understood his job was to uphold existing law, not change the law. I admonished people for opposing his nomination based on his pro-life legislative record. I reminded them that judging his ability to perform as Attorney General should be based on his integrity and his record. Whether you disagree with his stance on abortion or not, you can't deny he was honest about his position. That's a sign of integrity. His record as a law enforcement official had been clearly established in Missouri. He upheld the law fairly. Another sign of integrity. I argued vociferously that there was no valid reason for the Senate to deny his confirmation.

Of course, right off the bat he interfered with states' rights (insert bolt of lightning and crash of thunder here) by waltzing into Oregon with his big guns and telling Oregonians who voted TWICE to allow euthanasia that their CONSTITUTIONAL right to self-govern doesn't actually exist now that he's in charge and happens to disagree.

Ohhhhh...Mr. Ashcroft had could you let us down like that?

I was stung. But I still don't think I was wrong. While people should be held accountable for their actions, they cannot be punished for their thoughts.
Wendy 9:34 AM