I was going to let this go, but something has come to my attention that suggests the issue warrants some additional attention.
If you’ve been reading the site for a while, you’ve seen my ongoing concerns over Bush’s nomination of Bill Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. I have said, on more than a few occasions, that Pryor is about the worst possible nominee the administration could have come up with, and I’ve pointed to several areas of concern: his disdain for the constitutional principle of church-state separation, his “purist” position on gun ownership, his often-outrageous assistance for the tobacco industry, his partisanship through use of his public office, his radical adherence to “states’ rights,” his hostility for the Voting Rights Act, his contempt for Americans’ right to privacy, and his hatred for gay people.
Pryor’s nomination would have been controversial for any of these reasons, but it grew even more contentious when information surfaced about questionable fundraising practices plus potentially false answers about said fundraising — under oath — to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Naturally, some have defended Pryor’s record. That’s fine. They have argued that he’d make an excellent judge. They’re entitled to their opinion. They believe he’d have little trouble in separating his personal feelings from professional responsibilities as a federal appeals court judge. I disagree, but this is obviously a legitimate area for political debate.
Some, not all, of Pryor’s defenders have taken a different tack. If you disapprove of Pryor’s nomination, they say, then you must be a bigot against Roman Catholics. This is not only a disgusting and unjustified slur, I would argue it even damages the political discourse in America.
It started with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who is a Mormon, who began this unfortunate line of attack during committee hearings on Pryor. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a Methodist, followed up on this approach, saying that Dems on the Judiciary Committee believe “No Catholics need apply.”
The Committee for Justice, a right-wing political group formed by former White House counsel C. Boyden Gray to support Bush’s judicial nominees, picked up on this smear tactic and started running print ads that read, “Some in the U.S. Senate are attacking Bill Pryor for having ‘deeply held’ Catholic beliefs to prevent him from becoming a federal judge. Don’t they know the Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for public office?”
Even I have since received an email from someone who argued that, “liberals hate all Catholics from the Pope on down.” This person, whose name I’m withholding, added, “You can’t stand them because they won’t sign off on homo rights and infanticide.”
The merits of this argument are almost too silly to warrant a response, but I want to mention a couple of things.
First, there are 19 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee — 10 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Of the 10 Republicans on the committee, only one, Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), is Catholic. Of the 9 Dems, meanwhile, 4 are Catholic, including the committee’s ranking member and former chairman, Pat Leahy (D-Vt.). This means that non-Catholic Republicans are, in essence, accusing Catholic Democrats of harboring anti-Catholic animus.
This point was driven home nicely by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a lifelong Catholic who strongly opposes Pryor’s nomination, who was understandably outraged when Hatch and Sessions began playing politics with Pryor’s faith.
“This is disgusting,” Durbin said. “I want to express my gratitude to my colleagues who are members of the Church of Christ and the Methodist Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for explaining Catholic doctrine today.”
Second, as the Boston Globe mentioned yesterday, the Republicans’ hypocrisy is astounding. The so-called Committee for Justice, for example, argues that Pryor is being mistreated because of his “deeply held” Catholic beliefs. Yet Pryor, the Globe noted, is an ardent supporter of the death penalty, which is at odds with Catholic doctrine and the will of the Pope.
Lastly, these repulsive attacks and unfounded claims of bigotry seriously undermine how politics functions in America. If Dems oppose Pryor, it must mean they’re anti-Catholic. If Dems oppose Miguel Estrada, it must mean they’re anti-Hispanic. If Dems opposed Clarence Thomas, it must mean they’re racist against African Americans. If Dems oppose Priscilla Owen, it must mean they hate women.
Is this what politics in Washington has come to? To reach sincere differences over public policy legitimizes charges of bigotry?
Up until fairly recently, this wasn’t the case. When Hatch and other Senate Republicans blocked scores of Clinton’s judicial nominees, the Clinton White House and Senate Dems did not accuse the GOP of bigotry based on the characteristics of every blocked nominee. It was a political problem, to be sure, and Dems understandably railed against the GOP’s obstructionist policies. But civility demanded, and decency required, that the Dems’ criticisms not delve into personal accusations of prejudice.
Republicans, meanwhile, have made these kinds of attacks routine. In the process, the political climate and environment for debate has never been more toxic. They ought to be ashamed.