Pryor Nomination Survives on 10-9 Vote
I love moral quandaries, especially when they have a political theme to them. Such is the case with David Pryor, an otherwise unremarkable Shrub nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Prior's case features a conflict involving two words that should probably never be used in the same sentence: abortion and Catholicism.
A bitterly divided Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines yesterday to approve the appellate court nomination of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr. and send it to the Senate, where a Democratic filibuster appears increasingly likely.
The 10 to 9 vote for Pryor's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, followed an acrimonious debate that included a blistering exchange over a conservative group's charge that Democrats opposed Pryor because of views arising out of his Catholic faith.
Democrats described the ads as "contemptible" and "diabolical" and called on GOP senators to disavow them, while Republicans said Democrats were applying litmus tests on abortion and other issues that would disqualify people such as Pryor who strictly adhere to Catholic doctrine.
Of course, the problem here is the question of whether or not Pryor's strong Catholic faith and fervent opposition to abortion would influence his ability to enforce Roe v. Wade. Pryor says he will not allow his personal views to color his enforcement of the law, but no one with any sense is likely to believe that (though I suppose it MAY be possible in a perfect world).
This raises another, perhaps even more disturbing question. Does (or should) being a committed Catholic disqualify someone from the federal judiciary? Of course, no one would reasonably suggest that sort of discrimination, but that is the bottom line here. No, someone who is virulently anti-abortion should not be allowed to rule on abortion cases (Roe v. Wade is the land of the land, after all), but discrimination on the basis of religion is reprehensible. The drawback against this position is that it can be alos used for issues other than abortion, eventually rendering NO ONE qualified to sit on the federal bench.
Obviously, in this case, religion and philosophy are inextricably linked. Does David Pryor deserve to be a federal judge? He, by all accounts, is a qualified legal theorist and a capable member of the bar. Are we to believe that Pryor will be good to his word, and that he will not use his beliefs to undermine Roe v. Wade? In the final analysis, as much as I oppose Pryor's belief system, I don't know that you can disqualify him from serving on the federal bench simply because of them. The end result would be that before long, any nominee could be disqualified for his his beliefs (whether Liberal or Conservative). When you begin applying philosophical and religious litmus tests, you might get what you're after in the short term, but the long term impact might not be to your liking. No wonder the debate on Pryor's nomination became so heated and ugly.
The floor is open, y'all. I'm interested to find out what nimbler intellects than my own might have to say about this....
