Dionne's Religious Test
While carefully disclaiming any intention to advocate imposition of a "religious test" on John Roberts in violation of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3), E.J. Dionne turns around and does just that.
Here's how he structures his argument:
Republicans appreciate the intense lobbying on his behalf by conservative Christian groups and see the nominee's faith as part of his appealing personality. But when Sen. Richard Durbin took Roberts's religious commitments seriously enough to ask him how they might affect the judge's court rulings, the Illinois Democrat was accused of . . . dragging religion into politics.
But here's the problem with Dionne's argument. First, the Republicans are not using religion as a "test" -- that is, a factor upon which the success of Judge Roberts' nomination hinges. Democrats like Durbin, in a very real sense, are. They would like to use some facet of his faith (and his adherence to it) as a way to demonstrate that he is unfit to sit on the Supreme Court and ultimately to scuttle his nomination. After all, by wanting to ask how his religion might "affect" his court rulings, Senator Durbin isn't just looking for a little enlightenment on whether the whole "transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation" debate is going to come into play in the context of, say, takings cases.
Second, Republicans do, indeed, "see the nominee's faith as part of his appealing personality." But not as a parochial theological matter . . . after all, they are no more interested than Senator Durbin on Judge Roberts' views on the theological importance of the Virgin Mary. Instead, they are using religion as a proxy -- as a sign that Judge Roberts relies on an ethical framework (more extensively than his own, subjective judgment) as he interprets the law. The fact that Catholic doctrine is pro-life may be a plus from the perspective of pro-lifers -- but it certainly doesn't guarantee a consistent pro-life voting record. Just ask Anthony Kennedy.
If Republicans were attempting, with Judge Roberts, to say that he is worthy of confirmation because he is a Catholic, that would be tantamount to having imposed a religious test. Seeing his Catholic faith as an incidental "plus" factor doesn't come anywhere near imposing a religious test. But quizzing him on his Catholic faith -- and, apparently, being willing to vote against him based on it, alone -- well, that would, in fact, be applying an unconstitutional religious test.
And -- sorry to say -- it wouldn't be the first time for some Democrats. They took the same tack with regard to the nominations of Bill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit and John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. They did it even though both men insisted that their faiths would not prevent them from faithfully applying even the laws with which they disagree. And that's because these anti-religion Democrats see religious people as somehow less than rational -- prisoners in thrall to doctrines to which they have sworn blind obedience. It's highly insulting.
What is it about religious faith that is so profoundly threatening to Dick Durbin and his ilk?
Here's how he structures his argument:
Republicans appreciate the intense lobbying on his behalf by conservative Christian groups and see the nominee's faith as part of his appealing personality. But when Sen. Richard Durbin took Roberts's religious commitments seriously enough to ask him how they might affect the judge's court rulings, the Illinois Democrat was accused of . . . dragging religion into politics.
But here's the problem with Dionne's argument. First, the Republicans are not using religion as a "test" -- that is, a factor upon which the success of Judge Roberts' nomination hinges. Democrats like Durbin, in a very real sense, are. They would like to use some facet of his faith (and his adherence to it) as a way to demonstrate that he is unfit to sit on the Supreme Court and ultimately to scuttle his nomination. After all, by wanting to ask how his religion might "affect" his court rulings, Senator Durbin isn't just looking for a little enlightenment on whether the whole "transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation" debate is going to come into play in the context of, say, takings cases.
Second, Republicans do, indeed, "see the nominee's faith as part of his appealing personality." But not as a parochial theological matter . . . after all, they are no more interested than Senator Durbin on Judge Roberts' views on the theological importance of the Virgin Mary. Instead, they are using religion as a proxy -- as a sign that Judge Roberts relies on an ethical framework (more extensively than his own, subjective judgment) as he interprets the law. The fact that Catholic doctrine is pro-life may be a plus from the perspective of pro-lifers -- but it certainly doesn't guarantee a consistent pro-life voting record. Just ask Anthony Kennedy.
If Republicans were attempting, with Judge Roberts, to say that he is worthy of confirmation because he is a Catholic, that would be tantamount to having imposed a religious test. Seeing his Catholic faith as an incidental "plus" factor doesn't come anywhere near imposing a religious test. But quizzing him on his Catholic faith -- and, apparently, being willing to vote against him based on it, alone -- well, that would, in fact, be applying an unconstitutional religious test.
And -- sorry to say -- it wouldn't be the first time for some Democrats. They took the same tack with regard to the nominations of Bill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit and John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. They did it even though both men insisted that their faiths would not prevent them from faithfully applying even the laws with which they disagree. And that's because these anti-religion Democrats see religious people as somehow less than rational -- prisoners in thrall to doctrines to which they have sworn blind obedience. It's highly insulting.
What is it about religious faith that is so profoundly threatening to Dick Durbin and his ilk?
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:20 AM
2 Comments:
"What is it about religious faith that is so profoundly threatening to Dick Durbin and his ilk?"
Religious faith provides many believers with a solid foundation on which they base their lives. Therefore, they are less likely to be swayed by the latest hokum embraced by "his ilk".
Positively horrific!
Great post, Carol. I have a nit to pick with one example, however: "the divinity of the Virgin Mary" is not an article of Catholic faith. In fact, we know that Mary is not divine.
Your example would be stronger if it just said "Judge Roberts' views on the Virgin Mary."
The "transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation" thing, you handled with aplomb-- that was funny. But the Mary example misstates the Catholic position.
Post a Comment
<< Home