July 21, 2005
Judicial Nominees: Republican vs. Democratic
After throwing out the decoy Edith Clement, Bush picked John G. Roberts Jr to fill O’Connor’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts is young and does not have much of a paper trail. He is a stealth candidate. Why the decoy? Why the stealth? This is the way Rove-and-Bush Republicans operate: dazzle the public but do not give them the facts - which often hurt their cause of fighting for the rich and powerful. Democrats, however, believe in rationally discussing the facts - which usually support their cause of fighting for all Americans.
As soon as Bush announced the name of Roberts, Republicans of all stripes came out and lauded Roberts to the skies. All said the same thing: Roberts is a nice guy, he is very smart, everybody thinks he is a top-notch lawyer, he is not explosive and he is not ideological. In passing they let us know he is a "traditional conservative." There is no reason for Democrats to worry. Only extremist groups would object.
Unlike Republican senators, who had already made their decisions, most Democratic senators have not yet done so. They want to get the facts. They want to see what Roberts stands for. Senator Schummer is typical. He said yesterday that he voted against the confirmation of Roberts last time to the Appeals Court because Roberts refused to answer his questions; he hoped that Roberts would answer properly this time.
I have doubts about whether he will answer the questions. One reason for my doubts is this remark by theocrat Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, the same outfit that gave us Justice Sunday to support the "nuclear option":
"The president is a man of his word. He promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what he has done."
Another reason for my doubts is this remark by theocrat James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family:
"Justice Souter was what some called a black box. No one knew what was in it. I think we do know a lot about Judge Roberts from his life, from his record, from the things that he has stood for. And we feel much more comfortable with this nomination than we would have with Justice Souter."
So, here you have 2 theocrats, Perkins and Dobson, saying Roberts is one of them - a theocrat.
The chances are good that Roberts will be confirmed. In the worst case, he will be confirmed after the "nuclear option" is exercised. So why do I bother with this article? It is instructive to show how a Democratic candidate would differ from a Republican candidate such as Roberts:
- ABORTION - Roberts has said that Roe vs Wade should be "overruled." He argued a case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion. He defended Operation Rescue, the outfit that terrorizes women seeking abortions. A Democratic judicial candidate would not superimpose his religious convictions on the rest of us, but favor allowing people to exercise their own consciences with reference to abortion
- PRAYER IN SCHOOL - Roberts argued for the constitutionality of sectarian prayers at high-school graduation ceremonies. A Democratic judicial candidate would most likely favor the separation of church and state; all religious minorities would welcome this.
- FAMILY PLANNING - In 1991, Roberts served up the government’s case before the Supreme Court in Rust vs. Sullivan, arguing for the right to restrict the speech rights of family-planning organizations that receive public funding. A Democratic judicial candidate would not interfere with activities of family planning organizations
- ENVIRONMENT - In one opinion, Roberts indicated that he thinks it’s unconstitutional for Congress to protect endangered species from extinction, and our air and water from pollution. A Democratic judicial candidate would protect our environment from the ravages of Big Business
If you want good members of the Supreme Court, members who will not be activists but be concerned about the rights of all citizens - Christian and non-Christian, employers and employees, rich and non-rich - vote for Democratic senators in 2006.
Posted by Paul Siegel at July 21, 2005 03:55 PMThere’s a lot of opinion here and sweeping generalities about what “America” wants. You simply love to read a lot into the “Theocrats” statements. There is little substance here accept comments from people you despise.
Also, Paul, please comment on what Ginsburg did during her confirmation. I’m sure the same thing is going to happen here. Unfortunately, the response of the Dems will not be as polite as the ones were from the Republicans.
After all, Republicans nominees have to answer questions, Democrats do not.
Posted by: Cliff at July 21, 2005 04:28 PMAgain, Misha wrote an article on this back in January along with the name of the “stealth” nominee. His predictions are coming true I see.
Supreme Court Propaganda Battle On the Horizon
Posted by: George in SC at July 21, 2005 04:53 PMWhere is the line drawn between a “theocrat” and a religious person who wishes to participate in the political process? I think there really are some Republicans who could reasonably be called “theocrats” (and some Democrats too) but it’s a term that should be used much more carefully than it is. And I think there are fewer actual “theocrats” out there than some seem to think.
Someone against gay marriage or abortion shouldn’t automatically be called a “theocrat,” should they? Many such issues have ethical dimensions which aren’t only religious, even if religion is the reason some do hold their views. You don’t even have to be religious at all to be pro-life or anti-gay marriage, for instance.
And should you be told that you have no right to advance your ethics and values in the political sphere if you are motivated by religion? This isn’t about who is right and who is wrong on any given issue—it’s about who is allowed to join the debate.
To use one example: I would say that anyone who wants to impose prayer in school is a theocrat. Someone who wants to allow it (on a voluntary basis) is merely advocating first amendment rights and the freedom to practice religion. Personally, I don’t think prayer belongs in the schools at all, but neither do I think my preferences on the matter are more important than someone else’s constitutional rights.
Similarly, anyone who says evolution should never be taught in school is a theocrat. But if they’re saying “creation” should be mentioned too (in a non-sectarian way), I’d disagree but not label that person a theocrat.
I think that ensuring the rights of different groups requires a balancing act and an eye for nuance which Republicans and Democrats alike don’t seem to have the patience for. Unfortantely, posts like this one—where people are being indiscriminately labed “theocrats”—are part of the problem. And I suspect that Democrats are suffering for it at the ballot box more than Republicans are because it feeds into the stereotype (not a wholly accurate one, in my opinion) that Democrats have nothing but contempt for people of faith.
Posted by: sanger at July 21, 2005 05:09 PMWhy don’t we let the words of the writer of the Decloration of Independence have a word on the subject of religion.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Miles King, Sept. 26th, 1814:
“Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man’s and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friend’s or our foe’s, are exactly the right.”
I couldn’t agree more. It is each of us who have to answer in the end to our God. I don’t have to answer to God for your actions, only for my own. As a christian, I believe it is my job to pray against sin of all kinds. For the bible tells us all sins are equall in the eyes of god. The liar, murderer, adultry, abortion, thief, rapist etc. etc. are all the same in the eyes of the lord. But what is the one sin that stands out above all? Taking the lords name in vain.
Christians need to lighten up and take care of their own home. I will not go to hell because you sin.
Posted by: Russell at July 21, 2005 06:08 PM
Nice article and I agree with your sentiments.
I too wondered over the bait and switch technique that was used, but nothing these Neocon’s do can surprise me anymore.
Yesterday in the center column, I mentioned that Jerry Falwell immediately endorsed Roberts, too. There is little doubt in my mind that the man has been carefully chosen because they felt he’d be a strict Neocon/Theocrat judge who would smartly goosestep in line with the goals of the administration.
And yet, despite this awful fact, I have a feeling the Dem’s aren’t going to put up too much of a fuss over Roberts. More likely, they’ll save it up their energy for the fight that will ensue when Renquist retires (and either Souter or Thomas ascends as Chief Justice), and W must choose their replacement.
sanger:
“Unfortantely, posts like this one—where people are being indiscriminately labed “theocrats”—are part of the problem.”
Get real! There is no “indiscriminate labeling” going on when someone mentions Tony Perkins and James Dobson as political theocrats who are no doubt endorsing Roberts because they believe he’ll do what they want. Those control freaks wouldn’t be doing so otherwise.
To say claim any differently one would need to be either totally ignorant or completely disingenuous.
Adrienne, what I object to is the partisan use of labels in order to slur people in the tradition of Joseph McCarthy. This really ought to be something we can agree on, right left or center.
The label “theocrat” has a very specific meaning, with a volatile history, and is should not be bandied around as lightly and thoughtlessly as it is here. A theocrat is somebody who wants to end democracy and directly give to the church the powers of the state. It’s not someone whose religious values motivate them to participate in democratic processes.
Should we label someone in favor of more social spending a Communist? How about a Stalinist? Of course we shouldn’t.
I know nothing about Tony Perkins, so I won’t comment on him. Maybe he really is a “theocrat.” I acknowledge that I’ve met genuine theocrats among my compatriots on the right, just as I’ve met some genuine Communists who identify with the left.
But a fair-minded person should acknowledge that not all leftist activists are Communists and not all evangelical Christian activists are theocrats. Otherwise, we’re just engaging in cheap and thoughtless political bomb-throwing.
Dobson, I know a little about. I probably disagree with him on about 80% of the issues he opines on, but he’s no theocrat. And calling Roberts a theocrat? That’s just ridiculous. Nothing in his history supports that.
Incidentally, this constant use of “theocrat” as a smear against evanglical leaders does far more damage to the left than to the targets of their wrath. The left should just keep it up if they want to continue damaging their electoral prospects by unneccessarily insulting and alienating Christian evangelicals, a group which happens to be a very large voting block in this country.
Even Howard Dean has acknowledged that the left has made mistakes in this regard. I never thought I’d say it, but Howard Dean is suddenly looking more thoughtful and temperate than his followers.
Posted by: sanger at July 21, 2005 08:34 PM1 - let’s give Roberts his time in front of the Senate and decide for ourselves (separate from the party lines) whether he answers in a true nature or avoids and dodges questions. I’m amazed at how quickly - and guilty some of the time - that we let political parties so easily dictate how and what issues we react to. If Bush says something - we DEMs automatically move against it and the REPs automatically throw their support behind it. I, for one, do not want to give up my voice for organizational power grabs.
2 - DEMS – let’s not fall into the REP strategy of distractions by nit-picking on meaningless details or swinging at their foul balls. Let’s stay focused on the here and now - the economy, the war in Iraq, Rove, etc. Roberts is an issue when his hearings begin.
OK - I went from anti-party to WE DEMs in less than one sentence. Damn damn damn. (I think I could use a support group hug.)
Posted by: tony at July 21, 2005 09:09 PMOne of the things I hate about Democrats are the Group Hugs and too much thinking.
Joke.
Posted by: Aldous at July 21, 2005 09:50 PMI think “We DEMS” need to realize what really needs to be focused on.
At the beginning of this great nation,our forefathers wrote up a constitution. Somewhere at the top of that document are the words, “We The People”.
It just seems logical to me that this party, theirs or any others for that fact,should be focusing on getting their constituents to do their part in the governing of our country. The majority of the people in the U.S.just do not care about anything until it hits them upside the head or rump,which ever way the kick hits.
Its time for all of us to remember, as i beleive Sen. Byrd realizes, that we are a government of “We The People”, not democrats,not republicans,not lobbyists,or special interests groups,and to say the very worst,corporate giants.
If a person can adjudicate according to the law, what does their personal belief in whether life begins at conception or not have to do with anything?
A judge judges, it’s what they do, but a Supreme Court Judge judges according to the Constitution of the United States, nothing more, nothing less.
Interpretation. Now that is a whole other can of worms.
Posted by: Ynot at July 22, 2005 03:46 AMI think what makes a theocrat is trying to force ones limited or restrictive values upon everyone. It does not matter what you believe but rather whether you allow your beliefs to dominate your interactions with the world. While I feel it is fine for elected officials to be religious it is not fine to allow those beliefs, no matter how strongly held, to in anyway, be formed into legislation. Imagine for a minute if instead of being a mostly christian country we were a mostly jewish or muslim country. How many people would be ok if pork products were made illegal? Forcing large segments of the population to adhere to what is a religious rather than reasoned belief. Isn’t it better to allow people a choice? Isn’t part of religious beliefs the idea of free will? Shouldn’t everyone be given the choice? I realize how crazy this question sounds but is it really any different than the stance some have on creationism? You can believe what you will, that is the beauty of America, but to legislate beliefs on any level is just wrong.
Posted by: vague at July 22, 2005 08:55 AMI think what makes a theocrat is trying to force ones limited or restrictive values upon everyone. It does not matter what you believe but rather whether you allow your beliefs to dominate your interactions with the world.
By that definition, all politicians are theocrats.
I think theocracy has more to do with a religion itself. Religious values in and of themselves are not necessarily wrong.
Posted by: TheTraveler at July 22, 2005 09:58 AMTraveler,
I disagree, there are plenty of things I dislike but would never want to outlaw. I am not though, a politician. You are right, I did leave out the word religious to describe the values in question. Also there is a distinct difference between a theocrat and theocracy. We are discussing theocrats in our representitive democracy. They may want it to become a theocracy or they may act as if it is a theocracy and that is why we are discussing it. It is a slippery slope and that is why there is a seperation of church and state, a seperation that has become very thin at this point.
Posted by: vague at July 22, 2005 10:16 AMA few words from Robert Byrd about Bush’s choice, and a few about the courts in general.
It will be funny watching the left bash him as they did zell Miller, just weeks after calling him a hero..lol
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050721-115719-6891r.htm
Posted by: Beagle at July 22, 2005 12:16 PMIt will be funny watching the left bash him as they did zell Miller, just weeks after calling him a hero..lol
You do realize that many on “the left” are not critical of Bush’s choice, right?
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 04:06 PMthat is why there is a seperation of church and state
Could you show me the part of the Constitution that says seperation please.
Posted by: Ynot at July 22, 2005 10:42 PM
