When C. Boyden Gray was chair of the Committee for Justice, a far-right activist group committed to supporting Bush’s more conservative judicial nominees, he and his organization ran an attack ad when Senate Dems blocked Appeals Court nominee William Pryor. As Gray and the CFJ put it, Dems on the Judiciary Committee, many of whom are Catholic, were sending a signal that “Catholics need not apply.” To oppose Pryor, in other words, is to oppose Catholics.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is Catholic, not only was offended by the scurrilous and baseless attack, he held a grudge. When Bush nominated Gray to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Durbin put a hold on the nomination because Gray helped orchestrate these ridiculous attacks of judicial nominations. Last month, Gray sent — by both fax and first-class mail — a profuse apology for the 2003 ad, and Durbin allowed the nomination to move forward.
A valuable lesson that these misguided charges of bigotry have no place in our political discourse? I’m afraid not. Two weeks after the Committee for Justice’s former chairman apologized for a vicious attack, the exact same group is gearing up to pull the exact same stunt.
The Committee for Justice (CFJ), which defends and promotes constitutionalist nominees to the federal courts, today announced release of its latest ad, “Religious Freedom,” to run in Colorado, Wisconsin, and West Virginia throughout this week. The ad will air more than 2,000 times on 108 stations. The ad’s text is:
“It’s the season when Americans celebrate our traditions of faith … and once again religious freedom is under assault.
“Why? Because liberal groups like People for the American Way and the ACLU have opposed public Christmas and Chanukah displays and even fought to keep Christmas carols out of school.
“Some courts and judges have supported this radical agenda, but not Judge Sam Alito, President Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Throughout his career, Judge Alito has consistently upheld the Constitution’s protection of free religious expression. Now, these liberal groups are attacking Judge Alito because he won’t support their agenda.”
It goes on from there. It adheres closely to the new right-wing talking points on the Alito nomination
Several conservative groups, meanwhile, plan a major push beginning Monday to portray Alito’s opponents as anti-God. Talking points for the effort, which will involve ads and grass-roots organizations, were laid out in a strategy memo by Grassfire.org, which opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. Alito’s opponents are united by “an agenda to purge any and all references to religion from our public life,” the memo says.
I can’t say I’m terribly surprised, but it’s nevertheless disappointing to see that so many on the right have decided that the only way to win a confirmation fight is to smear their opponents as bigots.
Ironically, many of these same activists know from personal experience that these charges are ridiculous. In October, the White House started dropping less-than-subtle hints that those opposed to Harriet Miers’ high court nomination were anti-women. The accused went apoplectic, but as soon as Miers was gone and Alito became the nominee, they embraced the exact same style of attack-dog politics.
This has gone on for far too long. These same GOP insiders said Dems opposed Bill Pryor because they’re anti-Catholic; Miguel Estrada because they’re anti-Hispanic; Janice Rogers Brown because they’re racist; and Priscilla Owen because they hate women. Now Dems are “anti-God” for questioning Alito. When Republicans blocked dozens of Clinton nominees in the late ’90s, Dems and liberal groups didn’t stoop to this nonsense, but that doesn’t seem to matter now.
It’s a practical admission that the right can’t deal with a substantive debate on a judicial nomination on the merits, so they have to lash out with these attacks.
Sincere differences over the law, in conservatives’ eyes, legitimize charges of bigotry. It’s political discourse at its most painfully stupid.