The nominees in question are being opposed because they are not fit for office, but perhaps they are all Christian because the majority of all judges
nominated throughout history have been Christian. The 205 judges confirmed to the Federal bench during the Bush presidency are predominately
Christian. It isn't a matter of Democrats selectively weeding out Christians--nearly ALL or the nominees are Christian. There is no assault on
Christian judges or Christianity. It only seems that way because these nominees are bonafide radical lunatics.
DeLay is holding this tent revival to divert attention from his own issues with the man upstairs. If ever there was an instance of the pot calling
the kettle black...
And yes, there are a majority of Christians in the United States, but there are specific rules put in place by the Constitution, namely establishing
an independent judiciary, to prevent tyranny of the majority. The reason why democracies fail is because the majority feels that it has the license
to lord over minorities. In order for a democracy to be successful, society has to have the ability to put in place laws that are fair and
reasonable--not laws that make life intolerable for everyone but the majority.
On Pryor, Schumer was most likely referring to his deeply held views that render him prejudiced against homosexuals--particularly as he provided a
dissenting opinion in Lawrence & Garner v State of Texas
Bowers v Hardwick
, which upheld that it was illegal for homosexuals to have
consensual sex in the privacy of one's home in Texas. Hello??? That rarely enforced law that NO ONE believes should be a LAW was still on the books
in Texas in 2003--and this moron believes that it should still be illegal? Perhaps this view stems from his religious beliefs, but are we kidding
here? If he used the same standards to upheld a ruling on an arcane law regarding heterosexual sex, such as the law in Utah that still renders
premarital and oral sex
a felony--I'll bet that public opinion would be much different. Could you imagine
the public backlash if some judge used the excuse that he was "just upholding and enforcing the law" when he was telling married men what their wife
could or couldn't do in the bedroom--or telling consenting adults that it was illegal for them to have sex?
I think that liberal and conservative men alike would unite in rendering anyone that attempted to make oral sex illegal to Uzbekistan to have their
extremities boiled in oil.
But a guy that believes that it is ok to tell homosexuals that they can't have sex is fit to be a federal judge?
But perhaps Schumer was referring to Pryor's deeply held views that women shouldn't be given equal opportunity in state-run military schools, as
evidenced by his declaring the Supreme Court's ruling that called it unconstitutional to deny women admission to the Virginia Military Institute
"antidemocratic and insesitive to federalism." Or perhaps his deeply held view that handcuffing prisoners to an outdoor hitching post for seven
hours in the hot sun without water or bathroom breaks doesn't constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Or perhaps it was his other rulings and
opinions that argued against Constitutional protections in cases that involved age discrimination, protections for rape victims, racial minorities,
gay rights, and school prayer.
Among other things, making it illegal for homosexuals to have consensual sex in the privacy of their own home, as Mr. Pryor believes should be
illegal, would make life intolerable for many people. Even if this isn't your lifestyle, if you can't keep your religious beliefs from the
courtroom, you are not fit to serve as a federal judge. Is this an assault on his Christian beliefs? No. He is trying to restrict religious freedom
for minorities--his sins do not translate to crimes under the Constitution.
Madison states in Federalist 51, his excellent essay on the need for each branch of government be as independent as possible to keep government honest
("If men were angels, no government would be necessary."),
It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the
oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in
different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
What is so disturbing about what the Conservative Republicans are attempting to do is that it steps into our personal business. They are attempting
to mandate Christian beliefs into everyone's life--from how a woman can obtain birth control to forcing words into childrens mouths at school to what
we can pay to watch on cable television. While the majority of Christians may invite these changes, for those who are not Christians, this represents
restriction on freedom, is intolerable and tyranny--tyranny of the majority.
read the story here
ed. to shorten link w/BB code
[edit on 16-4-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]