« Nixon’s Secret Plan | HomePage | It’s Not a Question of Faith »

29/04/2005

It’s Not a Question of Faith


Senator Frist has challenged people of Faith, read that Christian Faith, to object to Democrats view that extremist judges have been nominated to the various federal courts. He has claimed that Democrats are opposed to these nominees because of their Christian Faith. Based on the following list of reasons for opposition I find it hard to see that this is the case. Only Pricilla Owens comes close to this because of her extreme activist views against women’s rights issues, which usually means abortion.

Last night George W Bush contradicted what Bill Frist told us about the Democrat’s filibuster as an attack on Faith. He answered a reporter’s question about faith saying that his judicial nominees were not being held up because of their faith. And, he said that faith is a private matter and it shouldn’t be considered.

So, the question becomes, why is the administration so hell bent on ramming these extremist nominees through the process? Is it simply paving the way for appointing an extremist to the Supreme Court when the opportunity presents itself?

Here is the evidence supporting my views on eight of the ten nominees. I haven’t found the other two yet.

From saveourcourts.org

William G. Myers III is being opposed because of his disregard and disrespect for the concerns of the Native American community and his troubling legal philosophy that would elevate property rights to a level of constitutional scrutiny reserved for fundamental rights, such as the right to free speech and equal protection. Among other things, but not because of his opposition to abortion or his Christian faith.

Terrence Boyle is being opposed because “Judge Boyle's record reflects a deep and abiding hostility to civil rights cases based on race, gender, disability, and age.” He is not being opposed for his abortion rights views or his Christian Faith.

Pricilla Owens is being opposed because of “of her activist and extreme views on important civil rights, worker's rights, consumer's rights, and women's rights issues.” So, maybe abortion is an issue with her. But, this has nothing to do with religion.

Brett Kavanaugh is being opposed because of his extreme partisan views and “Such a partisan advocate should not be confirmed for a lifetime position on the critically important D.C. Circuit.” This has nothing to do with religion.

William Pryor is being opposed because “Pryor has demonstrated a commitment to rolling back the clock on federal protections against discrimination based on race, gender, age, and disability. He has pushed his extremist agenda not only through litigation in which Alabama was a party, but also by electing to file amicus briefs in cases in which Alabama was not involved, and through numerous public speeches that make clear that the ideological positions he has taken in these cases are his own.” He is an extreme activist judge that the right claims it doesn’t want. However, his opposition has nothing to do with religion or abortion.

Thomas Griffith is being opposed because “His views on educational equity for women and girls, and the implication of those views for the continued vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights laws, compel us to conclude that Mr. Griffith is a poor choice for the federal appellate bench.” This has nothing to do with Christian Faith or abortion.

Janice Rogers Brown is being opposed because, “Brown's record as a California Supreme Court justice demonstrates a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers' rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.” This has nothing to do with Christian Faith or abortion.

William Haynes II is being opposed because, “We believe that Haynes' record as the chief architect and defender of the administration's policies regarding the treatment of "enemy combatants" in the United States is so extremist that it raises serious doubts about his commitment to even the most rudimentary principles of due process and human rights.” So he likes the administration’s view on torture which has nothing to do with religion or abortion.




12:37 Posted in Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | Email this | Tags: Politics

Comments

Your post was more namecalling than actual detail, but you are right that the battle for the courts is important. It could end liberalism in government.

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/27/the_final_days_of_the_third_stage_of_the_4gp_against_liberal.html

Posted by: Dan | 29/04/2005

The comments are closed.