LeftOut

by Daryl Moore

BUSH’S NOMINATIONS

While we fight for freedom abroad, he mounts an attack on the judicial system at home

Fully aware that Americans are preoccupied with the war on Iraq, the Bush administration has stepped up its assault on the independence of the federal judiciary. Bush’s latest nomination to a federal bench, James Leon Holmes, is typical of the kind of justice Bush wants to bring to America. But Holmes has been so publicly radical that the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee was forced to delay his nomination proceedings after Democrats attacked Holmes’s writings on religion, gender and gay/lesbian equality, and abortion.

Holmes is a 52-year-old lawyer Bush nominated to the federal district court in Arkansas. He has a doctorate in political science from Duke and graduated number one in his class from the University of Arkansas Law School. Certainly no one can challenge his intellect.

Fortunately, however, Holmes has left a paper trail that might make it difficult for the razor-thin Republican majority to coalesce around his nomination. His writings and public statements reflect that his religious zealotry interferes with his ability to be an impartial judge on issues that he would be forced to decide if confirmed by the Senate.

Separation of Church and State

With regard to the separation of church and state, Holmes recently gave a speech to the Society of Catholic Social Scientists in which he said, “. . . Christianity, in principle, cannot accept subordination to the political authorities, for the end to which it directs men is higher than the end of the political order; the source of its authority is higher than the political authority.” He added that “the Constitution was intended to reflect the principles of natural law,” and he declared that Roe v. Wade is “the antithesis of natural law.” So much for the separation of church and state.

Gender Equality and Gay/Lesbian Rights

On gender equality, Holmes has written that “a wife is to subordinate herself to her husband … and [that] the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man.” He blames feminism for moral erosion and adds that “it is not coincidental that the feminist movement brought with it artificial contraception and abortion on demand, with recognition of homosexual liaisons soon to follow.”

Commenting on the all-male priesthood in the Catholic church, Holmes said that “the suggestion that male-only ordination implies a devaluation of women is as silly as the suggestion that a woman devalues women when she looks exclusively among men for a husband. The assertion that males and females both should be ordained without regard to their sex is akin to the assertion that same-sex relationships should be regarded as having equal legitimacy with heterosexual marriage.” Any doubt about what Holmes thinks of gay/lesbian equality?

Abortion

Holmes co-founded the Arkansas Pro-Life Educational Alliance and served as president of Arkansas Right to Life, Inc. Of abortion, he has stated that he thinks “the abortion issue is the simplest issue this country has faced since slavery was made unconstitutional and deserves the same response”—a constitutional amendment banning abortion. He has dismissed concerns that an amendment banning abortion would not allow the procedure in cases of rape by responding that “the concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.” (Tell that to the 25,000–30,000 U.S. women each year who become pregnant as a result of rape.)

In short, Holmes’s philosophy mirrors the philosophy of a multitude of Bush judicial nominees from Priscilla Owen (whom Bush’s own White House counsel called a judicial activist when he served on the Texas Supreme Court with her), to Charles Pickering (who could not explain why he tried to dissuade a U.S. attorney from seeking the ultimate sentence against white supremacists who burned a cross in the yard of an interracial couple). The only difference is that Holmes has left a paper trail that is impossible to explain.

While Bush is allegedly promoting freedom abroad, he is trying to stack the federal courts with nominees who believe that anyone who isn’t straight, white, or male is not entitled to equality under the law. The Senate should reject Bush’s brigade of zealots and should turn back the attack on the federal judiciary. If it does not, we can re-write the Pledge of Allegiance to read “with Liberty, and Justice for some … but not for all.”

Writing from the liberal end of the spectrum, Houston attorney Daryl Moore has a general practice and is board-certified in civil and appellate law. He can be reached at DarylMoore@outsmartmagazine.com.

If you have any comments about this article, please email them to letters@outsmartmagazine.com.