Drooling on the Pillow

Thursday, July 28, 2005

A-Borking We Will Go 

Sluggo has made a seamless summertime conversion from provider to consumer and just asks that as soon as you're done here, get back to your blog and post.

I'm okay with staring at the wall, but, as long as the air conditioner is working, I'd really rather have stuff to read.

For my daily gesture toward blogging I note some quacking in the New York Times letters section:
To the Editor:

Re "Skirmish Over a Query About Roberts's Faith"
(news article, July 26):

If, as appears undeniable, the administration and many
conservatives support Judge John G. Roberts for the
Supreme Court at least in part because they believe
that his Catholic faith will lead him to more conservative
conclusions on issues like abortion, why is it somehow
improper for the Senate to ask Judge Roberts whether
his faith will influence his conclusions on issues like abortion?

Simon J. Frankel
San Francisco, July 26, 2005
A few things. Grant Mr. Frankel his premise that one of Judge Roberts' selling points is the fact that he's a Catholic and likely anti-abortion. It should be pretty obvious why that fact doesn't lead logically to a Senate inquisition into his faith.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before
mentioned, and the Members of the several State
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support
this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States.
It's hard to imagine how the old boys could be any clearer than that. It's also obvious how important they thought this point was.

I'd love to hear a reporter, on one of those rare occasions when a Democratic senator takes a breath from screaming "Radical! . . . extremist! . . . out of the mainstream!", ask a question about some of the historically radical moves made by his party recently; from filibustering circuit judges to instituting ideological tests for confirmation.

I'm rather moderate myself on the abortion issue, but it's getting tiresome to point out that philosophical differences with "settled law" cannot be a disqualification to appointment and if it were (1) we would be living in a pre-Brown v. Board of Education world and (2) we would quickly devolve into a situation where only statist dolts could be confirmed.

For a group that yelps so much about a "living Constitution" the Democrats seem determined to put one right between it's eyes. In their drive to criminalize conservatism they seem perfectly oblivious to the situation they're creating for themselves for the day they regain the majority. The Republicans took a deep breath and helped confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg by 96-3. But if the Dems don't take a step or two back you can be sure that nothing like that will ever happen again.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bob at eCache for pointing me to Cardinalpark's post at TigerHawk which notes that there are three Catholic justices now for whom Papism was not a confirmation issue and the first Catholic justice was confirmed in 1836.
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Listed on BlogShares