:eyes:
PRESS RELEASE
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
For Publication On Or After
August 2, 2005
Washington, DC – The nomination of Judge John Roberts to become our nation’s newest Supreme Court Justice has brought out the Hard Left—and apparently anti-religious zealots in the U.S. Senate as well.
The anti-religious zealots appear to be headed by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and Dick Durbin (D-IL), (the gentleman who recently characterized our treatment of terrorists at GITMO as equal to Pol Pot’s murderous regime in Cambodia.)
Schumer, Kennedy, and Durbin are flailing about trying to grasp at anything they can find to be used to smear Judge Roberts and to keep him from being confirmed. Their latest ploy is to go after Judge Roberts’ religious beliefs. Sen. Durbin, for example, recently asked Judge Roberts if his Catholic religious views would conflict with his ability to make hard decisions as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, this anti-religious bigotry is nothing new. Senator Schumer vilified former Attorney General John Ashcroft when he was facing confirmation hearings in 2001. At that time, Schumer stated that Ashcroft’s “zealous and impassioned advocacy” made him unfit to serve as Attorney General. Schumer then held a series of hearings titled, “Should Ideology Matter?” to promote the idea that a person’s religious beliefs or philosophy should be a key consideration in approving a nomination. During Ashcroft’s confirmation hearings, Sen. Harry Reid noted: “I think that we have a right to look at John Ashcroft’s religion.” Was Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Jewish faith scrutinized when she was facing confirmation hearings? I doubt it.
When William Pryor was being interrogated during his confirmation hearings, he was criticized for his “deeply held personal beliefs” by Liberals and was even questioned about why he rescheduled a family vacation to avoid “gay days” at Walt Disney World.
We seemed to have reached a point where any strongly-held religious belief—if it differs from Liberal dogma—will automatically exclude a highly qualified person from holding public office. This is a dangerous path to pursue. The new Liberal litmus test appears to be that no religious person with strongly-held beliefs need apply for a public post. The Liberal Senators seem to prefer atheists, agnostics, pro-abortion zealots, or those with no firmly-held beliefs about anything to become judges.
Do judicial candidates face rejection because they base their beliefs about human rights and morality on the Bible? Apparently so, if Schumer, Kennedy, and Durbin have their way. It seems to me that these Senators would be perfectly happy to approve judicial nominees who base their ideas on the Humanist ManifestoII, or the editorial page of the New York Times.
These distinguished Senators should re-read the U.S. Constitution, especially Article 6, which states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification for any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The Founding Fathers put this into the Constitution because, prior to our nation’s founding, most of the colonies had state-supported churches and required membership in a particular denomination to hold office or to vote. In 1778 in South Carolina, for example, no person who denied the existence of God could hold public office.
When the Republic was formed, the Founding Fathers wanted to make certain that no religious test would be used to prohibit Americans (regardless of religious affiliation) from participating in the system.
The Senators are wrong to impose a religious test on judicial candidates. When they took their oath of office, they swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They are violating their oath and should be rebuked for their venal efforts to vilify a man because he’s a Catholic and has a judicial philosophy that differs from theirs.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2366TALKING POINTS FOR DISCUSSING ROBERTS:
1. America needs Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court and lower federal courts who will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.
2. Liberals want to maintain a monopoly in the Courts and use the Court system to impose liberal political and social agendas upon the American people. This is undemocratic and violates the right of the people to govern them. When activists ignore the Constitution or invent new “rights,” they are engaging in illegal and unethical behavior. They must be replaced.
3. Judge John Roberts has publicly stated that he is a Constitutionalist who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws under consideration before the Supreme Court. He will not legislate from the bench or impose his own views in decisions.
4. The Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote it—not upon a judge’s political ideas or thoughts about social justice. Here’s the danger of the “living Constitution” philosophy:
* Imagine if a deceased person’s Last Will and Testament was changed or redefined by a judge who viewed the will as a “living document” that could be altered based upon the judge’s personal opinions.
* Imagine if you’re having a home built and you sign a contract with a builder for a specific model home. When he finishes the home, you discover that he’s chosen a different model for you based upon his personal preferences. It’s not the home you wanted, but he decided that his contract with you was a “living document” that permitted him to change the specifications. He gets the home he wants, but not the one you wanted.
* Imagine you’re taking an exam to be get into medical school. You take the test and you’re certain you did well on it. When the results come back, you’ve been flunked. Why? Because the test scorer decided that your test was a “living document” that could be changed at will by the scorer. He decided that your answers—though correct—were fine for an agrarian culture—but not for the 21 st century.
5. Mark Levin, writing in his new book Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America has written: “Judicial activists are nothing short of radicals in robes—contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, and using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society. In fact, no radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary.”
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2360
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
