"Take a hypothetical nominee for the federal bench who has publicly stated that male dominance is essential to a healthy social system. He is (a) an evangelical Christian whose beliefs are rooted in his understanding of biblical principles, or (b) an agnostic whose beliefs are rooted in his understanding of sociobiology. It seems that according to Prof. Bainbridge, the Senate would be allowed to hold the nominee's views against him in scenario (b), but not in scenario (a). Personally, I think that this particular belief ought to disqualify him whether it's based on the Bible, the Koran, Confucius, Darwin, Nietzsche, or the Gor novels."
There's more good argument in the post I link to, but I find that paragraph particularly compelling. And, to name just one hot-button "religious" issue, there are atheists who are opposed to abortion rights.
Furthermore, it's not just vague "religious beliefs" that the current republicans are upset about, it's a fairly narrow range of beliefs (abortion and gay rights, mainly). There are quite a few deeply held religious beliefs that I'm pretty sure most Republicans would use to vote against a judicial nominee (opposition to the death penalty -- even for minors. Or drug use for religious purposes. Or, say, polygamy.)
No comments:
Post a Comment