PDA

View Full Version : Republicans inject religion into Judiciary Committee hearing


IJ Reilly
Jul 25, 2003, 12:38 AM
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are being called anti-Catholic after Appeals Court nominee William Pryor was asked about his faith at hearings. Democrats are saying the charges are absurd. NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg explains the controversy surrounding nominee William Pryor.

RealAudio link (http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=1355699) to story. (Sorry, no QuickTime.)

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 01:49 PM
Well the problem here is that getting judges nominated should not be political. Either side of the Isle that turns a nomination into a political even should be kicked out of Congress! The fillibuster earlier this year was in very bad tast. Bill Pryor is the attorney general of my state, and a great man. When 2/3rds of the cases are not heard at the federal level because there are not enough judges, then the politicians in washington are stripping the American people of their justice system, and it is sad.

pseudobrit
Jul 26, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Either side of the Isle that turns a nomination into a political even should be kicked out of Congress!

Say goodbye to most of the sitting Republicans who served while Clinton was in office.

Why the sudden focus on Hawaii though?
Or are we talking about that isle in name only, Rhode Island?

Backtothemac
Jul 26, 2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

Why the sudden focus on Hawaii though?
Or are we talking about that isle in name only, Rhode Island?

Cute ;)

Were you not the one mad at Macfan for pointing out misspellings ;)

mcrain
Jul 26, 2003, 04:02 PM
Number one, the Republicans blocked a huge number of Federal Judge Appointments under Clinton. There were a huge number of open judicial positions because of blocking tactics. They ended up being very smart b/c many of those positions were open for Bush to fill. He's been doing so. Despite the bad feelings, the Dems have not moved to block the vast majority of Bush appointments. They only stood their ground when Bush nominated someone they felt was a very poor, partisan nominee. The philabuster was in bad taste, but seeing as how the Republicans have not been accomodating in the main bodies of congress, but also terribly so in the committees. They have been acting like it is their way or no way. No middle ground, and they stifle discussion way too often.

Look, the whole point of the nomination process is so that Congress (majority and minority) has a means of blocking judicial nominees who are partisan or too extreme in any way.

pseudobrit
Jul 26, 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Cute ;)

Were you not the one mad at Macfan for pointing out misspellings ;)

Ah, but there's a difference. I was just being cheeky and certainly not using the fact that you misspelled something to attack your argument.

It was the capitalisation of the word "isle" that got my attention, like it was a proper place-name we were talking about ;)

It was just one of those coincidences that struck me as funny and worth a bit of smartass dabbled onto it.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well the problem here is that getting judges nominated should not be political. Either side of the Isle that turns a nomination into a political even should be kicked out of Congress!

So you are saying that Orin Hatch must go?

wwworry
Jul 27, 2003, 08:04 PM
Pryor is pro death penalty and anit-choice. Being for the death penalty is not being a "good" Catholic so the democrats objections to him are not because he is a "Catholic".

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Ah, but there's a difference. I was just being cheeky and certainly not using the fact that you misspelled something to attack your argument.

It was the capitalisation of the word "isle" that got my attention, like it was a proper place-name we were talking about ;)

It was just one of those coincidences that struck me as funny and worth a bit of smartass dabbled onto it.

I personally thought it was great!

Backtothemac
Jul 27, 2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
Pryor is pro death penalty and anit-choice. Being for the death penalty is not being a "good" Catholic so the democrats objections to him are not because he is a "Catholic".

So who cares if he is pro death, and pro life. That is his belief. Weren't judges supposed to uphold the rule of law, and not be politicians catering to parties ;)

pseudobrit
Jul 27, 2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
So who cares if he is pro death, and pro life. That is his belief. Weren't judges supposed to uphold the rule of law, and not be politicians catering to parties ;)

Well, upholding the rule of law would ideally include an impartial judge.
Nominations and hearings are in place to ensure that the judges put in place are as impartial as they need to be.

wwworry
Jul 28, 2003, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
So who cares if he is pro death, and pro life. That is his belief. Weren't judges supposed to uphold the rule of law, and not be politicians catering to parties ;)

I was just saying the logic of saying that opposition to Pryor is anti-Catholic does not hold because Pryor's views are not completely that of the Catholic church.

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by wwworry
I was just saying the logic of saying that opposition to Pryor is anti-Catholic does not hold because Pryor's views are not completely that of the Catholic church.

To flip the coin, a great many people refused to vote for JFK when he ran for president in 1960 because they assumed as a Roman Catholic, he'd be more loyal to the pope then to the Constitution. It was shameful to drag a person's religion into politics then. It is even more shameful now, when one would hope, we've become a more enlightened society. But enlightenment, it seems, has yet to reach Orin Hatch, who has proven time and again, that no sense of decency will ever stand between him and what he wants. The fact that several of his colleagues on the committee backed him on this outrage, none spoke out against it, and all voted with him to the last, suggests that the lack of shame now runs awfully deep.