|
Full Text of Letter to Sen. Daschle Regarding the Nomination of Bill Pryor 8/5/2003 July 30, 2003 Sen. Thomas Daschle Dear Sen. Daschle: No issue these days seems to be as contentious as the confirmation of judicial nominees, but the grilling of Alabama's Attorney General Bill Pryor before the Judiciary Committee raises questions that transcend a single confirmation debate. Noting that he had voted for "almost all" of President Bush's judicial nominees, even though they were pro-life, Sen. Schumer declared that he has "no litmus test." But he expressed some concern that Mr. Pryor's beliefs are so "deeply held" that he might not be able to set aside his own views and apply the law fairly. This is a reasonable concern, and to satisfy himself about the nominee's objectivity, Sen. Schumer asked him, essentially, two questions: What evidence was there that he would set aside his personal views in the performance of his duties, and would he seek to reverse Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity? Mr. Pryor responded by pointing to the orders he had given to his deputies to apply his state's partial-birth abortion ban in the narrowest way possible, and to his request to Nebraska's attorney general not to ask the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade in the Stenberg v.Carhart case. Actual evidence of performance should be even more definitive than a promise made under oath, but despite the evidence, Sen. Schumer is opposing Mr. Pryor's confirmation. We recognize that Sen. Schumer has a right to oppose this or any nomination for the reason of his choice. But we wonder what that reason can be. It certainly cannot be the pro-life views of Mr. Pryor, because Sen. Schumer has said that he applies no "litmus test," and that he has voted for other pro-life nominees. In addition, Mr. Pryor answered Sen. Schumer's specific concerns with actual examples. So it must be something else. And as we review Sen. Schumer's comments, the troubling thought arises that it might be Mr. Pryor's "deeply held" Roman Catholic faith. Why did Sen. Schumer claim to be a friend of "the bishop in our community who says the rosary outside an abortion clinic"? Mr. Pryor is not known to have engaged in this activity, so it is strange that this image should come to Sen. Schumer's mind. "We have to be concerned," Sen. Schumer tells us, "when it comes to separation of church and state" over Mr. Pryor's nomination. That same code phrase was used more than 40 years ago about President Kennedy. But it rings just as hollow when it is applied to Mr. Pryor, who grew up, in that place, as a member of a small religious minority that suffered discrimination. Sen. Schumer is comfortable evidently in dealing with people of Catholic origin whose faith is not so "deeply held." He is even comfortable in dealing with those with "deeply held" beliefs, such as the bishop in his community, so long as they remain marginalized. But he appeared extremely agitated to confront, in Mr. Pryor, a person who is unapologetic about his beliefs, yet completely responsible in his public role. You know Sen. Schumer. What assurance can you offer that a believing Catholic who comes before him, holding faithfully to the teachings of his church, will be treated fairly and dispassionately? This is a serious question, Sen. Daschle, that thoughtful Americans of faith are asking. Sincerely, Sandy Rios |
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
