Miguel Estrada, a Catholic of Honduran ancestry, withdrew his name from consideration to the Federal bench yesterday. Nobody thought that Estrada was unqualified. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and his resume is impeccable. But he’s not liberal, so he’s now one more Romanist scalp the Democrats can nail to their Senate office walls.
This summer, Democrats have defended themselves against charges that they are anti-Catholic, since they are stalling many of Bush’s nominees and a lot of them are Catholic. They’re right in that they are not merely anti-Catholic: they are prejudiced against any Christian who holds to the ancient faith. Specifically, they’re afraid that nominating traditional believers might threaten the One Big Thing they have written into the foundation of their part. Recall the gauntlet they put John Ashcroft through when he was nominated, and how he remains their whipping boy because he PRAYS IN HIS OFFICE before his workday begins!
The Dems haven’t presented any evidence that these snake-handling nominees will disregard the law; the simple fact that someone has “deeply held [Christian] beliefs” is enough. You may reply that the Republicans did the same thing to President W.J. Clinton. You would be wrong. They did indeed stall many of his nominees, and even blackballed a few (both tactics have a long, venerable history in the Senate). However, the GOP could have rejected Clinton’s judicial nominees on solid grounds, because in 1992 Clinton promised to only nominate judges who would uphold Roe vs. Wade. Regardless of the merits of the case in front of them, they would rule in favor of the abortion license, widely construed. Imagine if a judge said before confirmation that he would uphold all death penalty sentences, regardless of the facts.
Senate Republicans, remarkably, discovered their collective spines and are firing back. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, himself the victim of these smarmy tactics, has been pressing the nomination of Alabama Attorney General Pryor, another Catholic. Pryor made the mistake of opposing the One Big Thing in print, even in cases of rape or incest. In a Judiciary Committee hearing, Sessions said:
“Well, let me tell you, the doctrine that abortion is not justified for rape and incest is Catholic doctrine. It is a position of the pope and it’s a position of the Catholic Church in unity. So are we saying that if you believe in that principle, you can’t be a federal judge? Is that what we’re saying? And are we not saying, then, good Catholics need not apply?”
Democrats on the committee, which has a depressing number of rabidly pro-abortion Catholics, went nuts. When one of them said that Sessions, a Protestant, had no right to tell them what Catholics do and don’t believe, he shot back, “Some Catholics don’t believe in Catholic doctrine.”
Right on, brother Sessions! (Read the account of the exchange here.)
This shows — if you needed more evidence — that Evangelicals are the best friends of faithful Catholics in the culture today. I’d rather be governed by Southern Baptists than secular liberals. As long as they don’t prohibit me from going to Mass, spreading my faith, or buying wine, I would be happy to let them take over.
Republicans should put Miguel Estrada’s face in campaign ads next year. The Democrats pretend that they’re the party of inclusion and acceptance, but they’re the ones rejecting people on the basis of religion and ethnicity. Throw it back in their faces.
It looks like the only good hispanic is a pro-abort hispanic. There is a great disparity between the position of hispanic people about abortion and that of their elected (Democratic) representitives.
I really think that there should be some ramification for pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians. Their public positions on the matter cause scandal. Bishops should consider excommunication in these very public blatant cases. It is getting out of hand.
The Dems haven’t presented any evidence that these snake-handling nominees will disregard the law; the simple fact that someone has “deeply held [Christian] beliefs” is enough.
They don’t need any evidence. The liberal playbook says that if you can’t get something passed legislatively, then you pass it through the courts. They’ve abandoned all pretense about judges simply interpreting laws, so naturally when a judge says he’ll enforce a law he disagrees with, they assume that he’s lying.
I agree that some politicians should be excommunicated, Marilyn — but in a way, it’s too late. That should have happened in the late ’70s, when the full effects of Roe became known. If bishops did it now, people would say, “Ted Kennedy switched his position to pro-abortion three decades ago — how can you get on his case now?” Then the media will treat all of these powerful men as martyrs, though they won’t suffer any temporal harm.
You can’t just drop the e-bomb, you have to come up with a strategy to fight these guys in the media and in the pulpit, and see it through to the end. Look at the struggles of against Arianism or iconoclasm. It took decades to rid the world of those poisons. Bishops have to be willing to accept that they will be less popular in the short run among the people who count, but they’ll please the faithful. For that matter, they’ll please the One they should be worried about pleasing the most.