i'm not about to go charging into the books to cite any opinion or writing attributable to any of the above judges listed in the prior post to see what may be radical about them on either side of the equation. i would note, however, that for the sitting majority leader of the united states senate to go on television in support of the proposition that the loyal opposition party is against people of faith and god in general IS radical, shameful and well below the office the senator holds.
 

Janice Rodgers Brown is not being opposed because of her faith but because she thinks that the New Deal is of dubious constitutionality. Brett Kavanaugh is also not being opposed because of his faith, but because of his role in selecting very conservative judicial nominees in the past and because of his likely views on separation of powers and civil rights. As for Pryor, I think that something that Thomas said in passing is the best possible rejoinder to mjh21. Both Pryor and McConnell are persons of deep religious faith. (I know McConnell personally but have never met Pryor, so I am only going on news reports about Pryor's faith.) If Schumer is opposed to one and not the other it is not because one is deeply religious and the other isn't. Rather it is because Schumer thinks that one will follow the law and the other won't.
The fact that a judicial nominee is a person of deep religious faith does not immunize them from criticism about the fact that they have wrongheaded views about federal law or about the U.S. Constitution, and it does not mean that one cannot oppose them on the grounds of holding those wrongheaded views. Otherwise a person who insisted that the Constitution should be interpreted according to Halakhic or Islamic law would equaly be immunized from criticism because the source of those views was their deep and abiding religious faith. Frankly, I don't care whether Brown or Kavanaugh or Pryor is religious or not religious. I care about the sorts of interpretations of the Constitution and federal law they are likely to make in placed on the federal bench. That is the source of my concern about President Bush's judicial nominations.
 

thomas is absolutely correct that holding judicial nominees to additional scrutiny because of their personal religious beliefs is inappropriate. i would, however, wish to point out that the original post herein dealt with the inappropriateness of senator frist using his position as senate majority leader to participate in a nationally televised program, the primary theme of which is that democrats are against people of faith.

the subsequent posts have become a debate over the appropriateness of a tiny percentage of the president's judicial nominees, and the use of the filibuster by the opposition party against them. i would note that once again, democrats and more moderate thinking people, who read and react to postings in this blog have fallen directly into the trap consistently set out in the strategy and tactics of our conservative friends, just as they do elsewhere, including directly in the trenches of washington and national politics.

the focus of the debate has been changed, this time by a simple five sentence response by mjh21, from the appropriateness of senator frist's participation in this telecast to the merits of the president's judicial appointments. moderate thinkers beware. this is the neo-conservative strategy. shifting the debate avoids focusing on the real issue, in this case, the real issue of the post. i would therefore like to see a posting by our conservative friends that directly addresses their beliefs that senator frist's participation in a telecast designed to portray the loyal opposition as the party against people of faith, a telecast originating from a church, is appropriate, without resort to telling us how inappropriate it is to oppose certain of the president's judicial nominees, as it is clear, at the very least, that not all of the nominees are opposed solely on religious grounds, if, indeed, any of them are.
 

PHG is on target. Most of the responses I've seen across the blogosphere, defending Frist, don't address his participating in the telecast but instead focus on the filibuster and the nominated judges. These are separate issues.

Frist's willingness to participate in a telecast that overtly says that you don't really love God unless you support for a change in Senate rules crosses a line.

The only defense I've seen on the issue at hand came from Frist's office. The argument was that the criticism isn't valid since no-one complained when John Kerry spoke in a church and criticized Bush from the pulpit. But that response, too, misses the point that Kerry didn't tell the congregation that if they loved God they'd vote for him. Big difference.

Kathy at Citizen's Rent
 

my last comment on the issue for the benefit of mjh21, since he raised the questions specifically for me to address...

i wasn't aware that i was taking a "swipe" at senator frist. i did state that it is, in my opinion, well beneath the OFFICE of the senate majority leader for the leader himself, a man who is supposed to be the titular head of his party in the senate, which is supposed to be traditionally a collegial collection of people working for the good of the country, to associate himself with a telecast which overtly states that the democratic party is against persons of faith. in my profession, the appearance of impropriety can be as bad as the impropriety itself. this certainly smacks of such an appearance.

as for senator schumer's thoughts, please refer to the outset of my prior post wherein i stated that i believe it is inappropriate to hold a nominee to a higher standard of scrutiny solely due to his or her personal religious beliefs. that having been said, if hypothetically, a nominee stated that he would put his or her religious beliefs ahead of clearly stated law and constitutional mandates, then yes, i would oppose that nomination. along those lines, i cannot imagine that senator hatch would say that he would oppose a liberal nomination solely on the basis of the nominees atheist beliefs, although i'm not sure that there are any such nominees, i certainly would be interested in knowing if there were, and i'm not quite sure that calling liberals atheists is entirely appropriate.

as far as senator frist going to the frc, he is certainly entitled to do that. i would once again note that this gives rise to the appearance of impropriety. i'm more than willing to let senator frist say whatever it is that he has to say before i comment upon it. i would note, however, based upon the senator's track record, that it is inconceivable to me that he will show up at the telecast, and make a speech calling on all sides to cool the rhetoric, and imploring his viewers to realize that democrats are also good christians (jews, muslims, etc.). i will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, and wait until the appearance is concluded so we know what the senator has actually said, rather than what we expect.

as for the statement of justice o'connor, i assume you were kidding around. her statement is obviously directed at those, such as Rep. DeLay, who have gone public with statements to the effect that the time will come to deal with judges who dared to rule against his set of values. the congressman doesn't need his independence chilled. he does need to stop yelling fire in a crowded theater.

finally, getting back to the theme of my prior post, i am still waiting for a response from any of my conservative friends to the initial post that directly responds to the initial post of prof. balkin. do you think it is appropriate for the united states senate majority leader to participate in a telecast, originating from a church, the overtly stated theme of which is to convince viewers that democrats are, in general, against people of faith?
 

All the best secrets are told at night.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya