Via Daily Kos comes the Republican briefing book on nominee Roberts. One thing that caught my eye is this bit on how to paint any opposition to Roberts as evidence of anti-religious bias.
The unspoken undercurrent of these charges, and the likely basis for a whispering campaign against Roberts, is that he is a practicing Catholic and therefore predisposed to advancing the social policies of the Catholic Church through judicial opinions.It's clear that the Radical Republicans will try to paint anyone who even asks Roberts about his views on Roe v. Wade as an anti-Catholic bigot. Of course, you won't see any those same Radical Republicans voicing concern over the anti-Catholic practices of the Mississippi branch of Bethany Christian Services--the adoption agency that thinks Catholics don't make good adoptive parents.
The very same briefing book makes it clear that the Radical Republicans plan on using the "religious as victim" card in pushing Robberts through.
At bottom, critics who attack Roberts' unstated views on abortion are simply attempting to impose a religious litmus test on nominees, i.e., practicing religious (especially Christians) need not apply. This is the same scurrilous attack on several of the President's lower court nominees, such as Bill Pryor, and has no place in modern politics.I seem to remember several Radical Republicans questioning whether or not John Kerry was religious enough to be President. The only litmus test being applied here is that the non-religious (especially non-Christians) need not apply and should be prevented from participating in public life. Radical Republicans want to put up a lot of smoke that prevents people from asking the legitimate question, "Judge Roberts, will you impose your religious beliefs on others?" It's fine to have religious beliefs. What's not fine is using those beliefs as a lens when deciding legal questions. The Constitution makes it clear that there is to be no state sponsored religion. Imposing one's religious beliefs via the bench is one form of state sponsored religion.
If Judge Roberts can't keep his religion out of my bedroom, my living room, and off of my body and the bodies of those I love, then he doesn't deserve to be on the Supreme Court. If he did write and still believes "that the Supreme Court's conclusion in Roe v. Wade that there is a fundamental right to abortion 'finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution,'" then he isn't quite the legal mind the Radical Republicans say he is and is clearly unable to keep his religion out of my life. As such, he doesn't deserve to be on the Supreme Court.
We need a Justice who thinks, not an ideological hack. Unfortunately, we've gotten a hack. Not surprising coming from an administration comprised of ideological hacks, but disappointing all the same.
