From the WSJ Opinion Archives
THE NEXT JUSTICE
Judging While Catholic--II
Democrats attack Christian judges, defeat themselves.
As the debate heated up in April over ending Democrats' use of the filibuster to block votes on judicial nominees, the secular left worked itself into a frenzy when religious leaders organized a multichurch telecast to focus attention on the fact that the president's blocked appellate court nominees all happened to be "people of faith."
Their indignation focused principally on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's apparent endorsement of this neuralgic observation. Liberal editorialists, organizations and senators tried to get Mr. Frist to pull out of the event, but he stood his ground.
In 2003, Sen. Frist had reminded a thousand pastors at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast that the U.S. Constitution contained three religion clauses, not just the First Amendment's well-known two protecting the free exercise of religion and prohibiting a state-sponsored church. Mr. Frist used scriptural reference to an audience that understood. The religious test clause of Article VI, prohibiting inquiry into a nominee's religious views, he said, was the "rock" upon which the "house" of America's thriving religious liberty was founded.
Despite liberals' attempt to taint Justice Sunday, and perhaps because of it, the event was an enormous success, which is why this Sunday at 7 p.m. EDT, Americans can log on to JusticeSunday.com for a live Webcast of Justice Sunday II--an event that will introduce Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to millions of Christians.
Throughout the controversy last spring, journalists, especially, seemed to disbelieve the charge that Democrats--of all people--could discriminate against, well, against anyone. But the proof, to anyone paying attention these past three years, was overwhelming.
First there was the circumstantial evidence: filibustered circuit court nominees included Charles Pickering, a former president of the Mississippi Southern Baptist Convention; Priscilla Owen and Henry Saad, who sang in their church choirs; Carolyn Kuhl, who organized adult baptism classes; and William Pryor, a papal knight.
There were also the smoking guns: Opponents mocked Judge Pickering because he was "too pious" and noted that Justice Owen too showed "piety." They noted that Judge Pickering quoted from the Bible and the Code of Jewish Law and rebuked him for advising convicted juveniles to seek out prison ministries (programs with proven success in reducing the number of repeat offenders).
Democrats savaged the reputation of Arkansas's Leon Holmes, a devout Catholic nominated as a trial judge. Sens. Diane Feinstein of California, Charles Schumer of New York and Richard Durbin of Illinois showed invidious ignorance in mocking Arkansas's finest appellate lawyer for an article he and his wife had published in a Catholic newspaper, in which the couple explained St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians on Christian marriage. "They don't have a problem with Holmes," Sen. Orrin Hatch observed. "They have a problem with St. Paul."
And then came the Judiciary Committee hearing for William Pryor in June 2003. As if they had all received the same memo, senator after senator expressed his concern over Mr. Pryor's "deeply held beliefs." Behind the dais, Democratic staffers circulated a printout on the pro-life advocacy of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, as if it was damning proof of those erstwhile deep convictions. In fact, Judge Pryor is a knight of the Holy Sepulcher. But to Democrats that day, all Catholic knights looked alike.
Finally, there was the abortion litmus test, which came into focus ever more clearly to conservatives as nothing but a surrogate for a constitutionally prohibited religious test as nominee after nominee was probed for personal convictions without regard to his qualifications to serve.
In leading up to Justice Sunday I, critics had the gall to accuse Republicans of injecting religion into the public debate over judges. After it was over, they claimed victory. One leading reporter told me that Mr. Frist had been "humiliated" by the news coverage over the event. Even some conservatives thought that Christian leaders should be muzzled from talking about nominations. I thought that Mr. Frist had been brilliant and the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins had scored a slam dunk.
This Sunday, they will do it again. This time organizers will headline Democratic former senator Zell Miller and House Majority Leader Tom Delay. Liberals will not even think to ask either of those men to back out. (Some have attributed Mr. Frist's absence from this telecast to a supposed falling out with evangelical leaders over stem cell research, but in fact he had never planned to participate this time.)
Why do it again? Why was the first event successful? Two reasons. Since the ads in July 2003 by the Committee for Justice and Ave Maria List first came out with the resonant banner "Catholics Need Not Apply," the religious test issue has proved to be the most successful single catalyst of the judicial nominations fight to the greatest number of people. It has taken an inside-the-Beltway issue and placed it at family dinner tables and pews throughout the country. It has gotten people to the polls in two elections.
And then there is the second reason. We saw it best in the lead-up to Justice Sunday I as the event garnered reaction from the secular left that got more news media registered to watch the telecast than churches. The religious right wins whenever it can get the secular left to utter the word "religion," because it is invariably preceded or followed by something condescending, untruthful or offensive.
This week religious conservatives are keeping their fingers crossed, hoping (no need to pray) that Harry Reid or the New York Times editorial board will mock them again.
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.
