Post by HoyaNCCT on Sept 19, 2005 11:53:22 GMT -5
www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110007279
Catholics and the Court
President Bush promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. His backers will hold him to it.
BY MANUEL MIRANDA
Monday, September 19, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
In 1789, in one of the earliest great examples of exploiting insider information, John Carroll, America's first Catholic bishop, founded America's first Catholic college, at the Potomac River port of Georgetown. This was just within the borders of what would soon be the new federal city of Washington. The bishop's brother, Daniel, was one of the three commissioners assigned by Congress to recommend the location of the new nation's capital.
Ever since then, Catholics here have claimed this small remnant of the Maryland colony to be the intellectual mecca for America's Catholics. This is what Newsweek's Howard Fineman sought to explain a few weeks ago in his first article on John Roberts:
Washington sits on a substratum of Catholic conservatism that few people who aren't from here understand. It goes back to Georgetown University and pre-D.C. Maryland history. It is that community that Roberts represents, and that Bush is paying homage to with this pick.
It is an interesting thought that I, as a card-carrying member of this substratum, doubt very much. But if it were so, last Friday night's annual Crisis magazine gala, at the Willard Hotel, would have been even more jubilant than it normally is. Over the past 10 years, Crisis has assembled a community of America's most prominent Catholics. People fly in for the annual dinner. It is as swank as Washington gets: brainpower in black tie and pearls. The large dinner list was not partisan but it was certainly conservative, as devout, educated Catholics tend to be. Deal Hudson, Crisis's former editor, was the campaign adviser behind the Bush-Cheney sweep of the Catholic vote. And this was a crowd, in its finery, brought to tears by prominent political and priestly speakers who spoke of the culture of life.
If George W. Bush was paying homage to Catholic conservatives in the selection of John Roberts, this was the crowd. And yet neither my wife nor I remember Judge Roberts's name coming up once in the formal program. And the man who will be the highest-ranking Catholic in American government since the death of John F. Kennedy was not at the dinner.
In contrast, my memory is vivid of the Crisis dinner two years ago, when Alabama's Attorney General William Pryor received a sustained standing ovation. At the time, Senate Democrats were blocking a vote on Mr. Pryor's nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He was a hero to the assembled crowd, for reasons that National Review's Byron York explained just after Mr. Pryor's 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:
Pryor has said some very blunt things in the past. For example, he's a vigorous opponent of abortion and has called the Roe v. Wade decision "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." . . .
Before the hearing, Mr. Pryor no doubt knew that more than one senator would read his words to him and ask for an explanation. And indeed, right off the bat, New York Democrat Charles Schumer recited the "abomination" line and asked, "Do you believe that now?" It was the perfect moment for Pryor to begin a backpedaling, thank-you-for-your-question-and-please-confirm-me explanation. Instead, Pryor said, simply, "I do." Schumer looked slightly amazed. "I appreciate your candor," he said. "I really do."
Later, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter went over the same ground. Did Pryor really say such a thing? Specter asked. Was the quote accurate? Yes, Pryor said, the quote was accurate. Did Pryor stand by his words? "I stand by that comment," Pryor said. "I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children." Specter seemed more than a little chagrined. "Well," he said, pausing for a moment and looking down, "let's move on."
In the course of his hearing, Mr. Pryor, who then led the most innovative state attorney general's office in the country and had successfully argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, noted that his personal views would not prevent him from enforcing Supreme Court precedent. His record, in fact, showed that to be true, and he showed it to be true again when he removed then-Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments from the Alabama state courthouse, enforcing a rule with which he disagreed.
Bill Pryor joined the 11th Circuit on a recess appointment in 2004, and this June the Senate held its long-delayed confirmation vote, which he won. A Republican majority in the Senate and the Republican leaders' continuing threat to end judicial filibusters made Judge Pryor's confirmation possible. Judge Roberts's confirmation is likewise guaranteed for this reason alone, notwithstanding the best technical performance before the glaring lights of the Senate hearing room one could want.
No doubt that if Judge Roberts had been at the Crisis dinner, he would have received a standing ovation. I would have led it. But I know why Bill Pryor got a spontaneous ovation. It was for his clear record and his bravery as a public servant.
The president might keep Judge Pryor's example in mind as he prepares to make the next selection for the Supreme Court. That is, if Mr. Bush intends, as Howard Fineman put it, to pay homage, even if only homage to his campaign promises. After all, when the president promised to name justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, no one thought he was talking about their records on the Endangered Species Act or the Commerce Clause.
Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays
Catholics and the Court
President Bush promised justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. His backers will hold him to it.
BY MANUEL MIRANDA
Monday, September 19, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
In 1789, in one of the earliest great examples of exploiting insider information, John Carroll, America's first Catholic bishop, founded America's first Catholic college, at the Potomac River port of Georgetown. This was just within the borders of what would soon be the new federal city of Washington. The bishop's brother, Daniel, was one of the three commissioners assigned by Congress to recommend the location of the new nation's capital.
Ever since then, Catholics here have claimed this small remnant of the Maryland colony to be the intellectual mecca for America's Catholics. This is what Newsweek's Howard Fineman sought to explain a few weeks ago in his first article on John Roberts:
Washington sits on a substratum of Catholic conservatism that few people who aren't from here understand. It goes back to Georgetown University and pre-D.C. Maryland history. It is that community that Roberts represents, and that Bush is paying homage to with this pick.
It is an interesting thought that I, as a card-carrying member of this substratum, doubt very much. But if it were so, last Friday night's annual Crisis magazine gala, at the Willard Hotel, would have been even more jubilant than it normally is. Over the past 10 years, Crisis has assembled a community of America's most prominent Catholics. People fly in for the annual dinner. It is as swank as Washington gets: brainpower in black tie and pearls. The large dinner list was not partisan but it was certainly conservative, as devout, educated Catholics tend to be. Deal Hudson, Crisis's former editor, was the campaign adviser behind the Bush-Cheney sweep of the Catholic vote. And this was a crowd, in its finery, brought to tears by prominent political and priestly speakers who spoke of the culture of life.
If George W. Bush was paying homage to Catholic conservatives in the selection of John Roberts, this was the crowd. And yet neither my wife nor I remember Judge Roberts's name coming up once in the formal program. And the man who will be the highest-ranking Catholic in American government since the death of John F. Kennedy was not at the dinner.
In contrast, my memory is vivid of the Crisis dinner two years ago, when Alabama's Attorney General William Pryor received a sustained standing ovation. At the time, Senate Democrats were blocking a vote on Mr. Pryor's nomination to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He was a hero to the assembled crowd, for reasons that National Review's Byron York explained just after Mr. Pryor's 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:
Pryor has said some very blunt things in the past. For example, he's a vigorous opponent of abortion and has called the Roe v. Wade decision "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." . . .
Before the hearing, Mr. Pryor no doubt knew that more than one senator would read his words to him and ask for an explanation. And indeed, right off the bat, New York Democrat Charles Schumer recited the "abomination" line and asked, "Do you believe that now?" It was the perfect moment for Pryor to begin a backpedaling, thank-you-for-your-question-and-please-confirm-me explanation. Instead, Pryor said, simply, "I do." Schumer looked slightly amazed. "I appreciate your candor," he said. "I really do."
Later, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter went over the same ground. Did Pryor really say such a thing? Specter asked. Was the quote accurate? Yes, Pryor said, the quote was accurate. Did Pryor stand by his words? "I stand by that comment," Pryor said. "I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children." Specter seemed more than a little chagrined. "Well," he said, pausing for a moment and looking down, "let's move on."
In the course of his hearing, Mr. Pryor, who then led the most innovative state attorney general's office in the country and had successfully argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, noted that his personal views would not prevent him from enforcing Supreme Court precedent. His record, in fact, showed that to be true, and he showed it to be true again when he removed then-Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments from the Alabama state courthouse, enforcing a rule with which he disagreed.
Bill Pryor joined the 11th Circuit on a recess appointment in 2004, and this June the Senate held its long-delayed confirmation vote, which he won. A Republican majority in the Senate and the Republican leaders' continuing threat to end judicial filibusters made Judge Pryor's confirmation possible. Judge Roberts's confirmation is likewise guaranteed for this reason alone, notwithstanding the best technical performance before the glaring lights of the Senate hearing room one could want.
No doubt that if Judge Roberts had been at the Crisis dinner, he would have received a standing ovation. I would have led it. But I know why Bill Pryor got a spontaneous ovation. It was for his clear record and his bravery as a public servant.
The president might keep Judge Pryor's example in mind as he prepares to make the next selection for the Supreme Court. That is, if Mr. Bush intends, as Howard Fineman put it, to pay homage, even if only homage to his campaign promises. After all, when the president promised to name justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, no one thought he was talking about their records on the Endangered Species Act or the Commerce Clause.
Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays
