{"id":4139,"date":"2005-10-08T02:17:50","date_gmt":"2005-10-08T06:17:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/10\/08\/faith-agendas-and-the-supreme"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:31","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:31","slug":"faith-agendas-and-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/10\/08\/faith-agendas-and-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"faith, agendas and the supreme court"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

That sneaky Professor Bainbridge<\/FONT><\/A> has gone and done it again — <\/FONT>writing <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
something <\/FONT>I can agree with (up to a point, of course).  See his The Faith Card<\/EM><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and <\/FONT>our <\/FONT>immediately prior post <\/FONT> . . .more honest than the wink game<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT>(both <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
dated Oct.<\/FONT>7, 2005).   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
                                                                             \"bainbridgePix\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Steve is correct, of course:  It is<\/EM> inconsistent for conservatives <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to try to banish all talk of religious views in the John Roberts’ <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
confirmation process, but now use Harriet Miers’ evangelical <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
faith as a <\/FONT>reason to support her.   In discussing John Roberts’ <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Catholicism, <\/FONT>however, Steve and I agreed that relgion is relevant<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
if a judge’s <\/FONT>religion will trump his or her customary legal analysis <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
when <\/FONT>dealing with particular issues.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
          on the wall
    Jesus on the cross
above her side of the bed
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/SPAN><\/SPAN>     Tom Clausen<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
           from Homework<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> (2000) <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"dog Prof B. puts it well: “<\/FONT>First, judges are supposed to decide <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
cases <\/FONT>based <\/FONT>on <\/FONT>the law not their religious beliefs . .<\/FONT> As I observed<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
earlier <\/FONT>in commenting on Miers’ reputation for being a “pit bull in size <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
6 <\/FONT>shoes”:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
If confirmed, Miers’ job therefore will require her to set aside <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
her “very strong views of what’s right and wrong” in favor of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
those moral norms and policies that have sufficient social <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
support – or, in the case of constitutional and statutory <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
interpretation, those norms and policies reflected in the texts <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and the intent of their drafters – to be legitimate grist for the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
judicial mill.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Steve adds, and I concur (although surely drawing constitutional lines <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a bit differently than he): “That holds true whether her ‘very strong views’ <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
are based on secular or religious reasoning. Hence, the White House’s <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
strategy represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial role.”<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"tiny  Therefore, those who claim that you can never<\/EM> ask about religion or   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ideology in the nomination or confirmation process go too far.  The Senate <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and the public deserve to know if a justice would feel beholden to a higher<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
power than the Constitution and laws of the United States. <\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"JohnRobertsPix\"  Chief Justice Roberts gave the appropriate<\/A> answer in his <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
hearing, <\/FONT>when he <\/FONT>said:  “My faith and my religious beliefs do not play <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a role <\/EM><\/FONT>in my <\/EM>judging. <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT>In judging, I look to the law, I do not look to the <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Bible, <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT>or other religious <\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT>source.”<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Rather than silencing all talk of religion by conservatives for fear of liberal <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“Inquisitions<\/A>” in <\/FONT>the future, I think this is a perfect time for thoughtful <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
people across the political spectrum to help delineate the proper — very <\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
limited<\/EM> – role of <\/FONT>questions concerning the impact of religion on a judge’s<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
judicial behavior.  As I indicated<\/A> earlier tonight, when faith <\/FONT>is important in<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
your overall evaluation of a judge, admitting it has the very big advantage <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of being truthful.  The hypocrisy of all the winking and tactical maneuvering <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and semantics is a terrible sight for children (and adults) to see.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
\"tiny  Also (and this should be obvious), members of <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the <\/FONT>public can support a nominee for whatever reasons<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
they like.  It’s the President and the Senate who <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
have to apply the proper criteria.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Prof. Bainbridge also notes that <\/FONT>Rev. Patrick Mahoney<\/FONT><\/A> believes <\/FONT>playing <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the Faith Card is inconsistent with the tack many conservatives <\/FONT>took during <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the Roberts nomination.  While I agree with Fr. Mahoney that “you can’t <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
have it both ways,” I’m far from certain of the bona fides<\/EM> of some sectors <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of the “faith community” who argued that religion was totally out of bounds <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in the Roberts’ confirmation process.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
jogging<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
just past the church<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
I clean my glasses<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
    <\/FONT>Tom Clausen<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
        from <\/FONT>Upstate Dim Sum<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> (2003\/I)<\/FONT><\/EM> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
For example, the only politically active Catholic group that I have observed  \"wolf<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
closely over the past few months is Priests for Life<\/EM><\/A>, whose national director <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is Father Frank Pavone. (prior post<\/A>)  During the Roberts confirmation process, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and now with Harriet Miers, Fr. Pavone’s tactics seem more like those of a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
shrewd activist with a political agenda than a holy man preaching truth and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
hoping <\/FONT>to win converts.  Click here<\/A> <\/FONT>for my compilation of some of the materials <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on the <\/FONT>Priests for Life<\/EM> website, <\/FONT>which show the political hardball behind PfL’s <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
religious <\/FONT>dogma — e.g<\/EM>., the <\/FONT>clear <\/FONT>religious litmus test being forcefully applied <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to Senators <\/FONT>and candidates,<\/FONT>while preaching that personal religious views should <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
not be <\/FONT>relevant in the Supreme Court <\/FONT>confirmation process. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
PfL<\/EM> updates its website daily, spotlighting one new item<\/A>.  I will end this post <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
with two items posted this week, relating to the Miers’ nomination and to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
confirmation <\/FONT>of judges.  I offer no <\/FONT>commentary, but you are encouraged to draw <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
your own conclusions and leaves thoughtful comments (for example, on whether <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
shifting the ideological balance on the Courts ASAP is important to Fr. Pavone)..<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
– from the<\/EM> Priests for Life<\/EM> <\/FONT>Daily Update<\/FONT><\/A> Page:<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
October 6, 2005  <\/I><\/B>Priests for Life Press Release (issued Oct. 3, 2005): <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Priests for Life Calls for Swift Confirmation Process for O’Connor Replacement<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and president of the <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
National Pro-life Religious Council, thanked President Bush this morning <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in a timely <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
manner, and called upon the Senate to do its work in an expeditious way <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
as well.   <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
“Our prayers are with Harriet Miers this morning as she begins <\/SPAN>this important <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
process.  <\/SPAN>We trust the President’s judgment and his determination to fulfill his <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
promises about the kind of Justices he wants to see on the Court.<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
“The place for arguments about ideology and mainstream positions is in <\/SPAN>political <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
races. For the purposes of confirming nominees to the Court, the focus <\/SPAN>should <\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
be on qualifications to be a Justice, not on personal views on controversial <\/SPAN>issues.”<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN>October 9, 2005   <\/FONT><\/I><\/B>Sample letters to the editor on various topics.<\/FONT><\/A><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n
F. <\/FONT>Supreme Court and Senate Races<\/FONT><\/A><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
F-1:<\/EM>  <\/FONT><\/SPAN>We face a crucial election this year, since those who are elected <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to the US Senate may have the opportunity to confirm the next justices <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for the US Supreme Court, as well as many positions on other Federal <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
courts.   <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
For the passage of laws that favor the right to life, and for the appointment <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
of Justices who will protect that right, the President cannot act alone. The <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Senate must vote in a pro-life direction. That will happen only if we vote in <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a pro-life direction when we elect our Senators. A commitment to the right <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to life is not identical to a commitment to any particular political party. No <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
party perfectly embodies the Gospel, nor is our loyalty to party supposed <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to be stronger to our loyalty to our moral convictions<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (Oct. 15, 2005): At PrawfsBlawg<\/EM>, Paul Horwitz<\/A> has a lengthy <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
discussion of the role of religion in the judicial selection process.  His <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
summary is :<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“[T]he upshot is: properly speaking, there is no religious test <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
problem here; more broadly, events surrounding this nomination <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
raise questions about transparency and cynicism and make <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
clear that clumsy treatments of the intersection between religion <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and law are not the sole province of the left, or of the non-religious; <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and I am disappointed that the Becket Fund<\/FONT><\/A>, which embraced a <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
broad<\/FONT><\/A> view of the Religious Test Clause where religion is a <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
dis<\/EM>qualification<\/FONT> for judicial office, has not been equally liberal in <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
its views of whether religion may permissibly serve as a qualification<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for judicial office.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Horwitz says more in <\/FONT>The Super-Sneak, Double-Back, Reverse Religious Test?<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(Oct. 13, 2005).<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
– as usual, we cool down with a haiku or two:<\/EM><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
autumn colors-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
how assertive<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
she becomes<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n

\n
playing a childs game
    I learn all
     his rules<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
 Tom Clausen<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
           from Homework<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM> (2000) <\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
                \"scales<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

That sneaky Professor Bainbridge has gone and done it again — writing something I can agree with (up to a point, of course).  See his The Faith Card  and our immediately prior post  . . .more honest than the wink game (both dated Oct.7, 2005).                                                                                    Steve is correct, of course:  It is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-14L","jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4139"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4139\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12986,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4139\/revisions\/12986"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}