pryor_debate_81103

Posted: 8/8/03

Religious affiliation adds
a jolt to appointment debate

By Sean Reilly

Religion News Service

WASHINGTON (RNS)–When Bill Pryor won a full four-year term as Alabama attorney general in 1998, advocates of religious tolerance also chalked up a victory: In a state with a long history of antagonism toward Roman Catholicism, Pryor's staunch allegiance to that faith publicly never stirred a murmur.

Five years later on Capitol Hill, that restraint has vanished during Pryor's beleaguered bid for a federal appeals court judgeship. But it is his allies who are pushing religion to the forefront.

In a concerted campaign begun in late July, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and other Republicans have charged that Pryor's critics are singling him out for his Catholic beliefs and in particular for following the church's doctrine of uncompromising opposition to abortion.

At least in recent history, it is unprecedented to openly inject a judicial nominee's faith into the debate, several experts said. They offered mixed readings on whether the approach would work.

“This is not a Hail Mary pass,” said University of Akron political scientist John Green, resorting to a football metaphor, “but it is a very risky pass.”

Pryor has condemned the game plan as a smear campaign, but the quarterbacks may see little to lose. Since President Bush recommended Pryor in early April for the lifetime seat on the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the 41-year-old Mobile native has emerged as one of the White House's most at-risk nominees.

After a fractious debate, the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee sent his nomination to the full Senate on a party-line vote of 10-9. Democrats are likely to employ the stalling tactic known as a filibuster.

Instead of 51 votes normally needed to approve a nomination in the 100-member Senate, a filibuster requires 60 to cut off debate. Republicans have so far been unable to jump that fence for two other Bush judicial selections, meaning Pryor's candidacy could be in jeopardy should Democrats wage a similar campaign against him.

The issue of Pryor's Catholicism first surfaced at a June 11 hearing in Washington when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked him to state his religious affiliation. Although Hatch said he was simply trying to rebut allegations that Pryor has been insensitive to non-Christian faiths, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., quickly protested that the question was out of bounds.

But in a speech to the Christian Coalition of America last fall, Hatch already had accused Democrats of voting down judges “based on their religious views.”

And in mid-summer, a Republican-allied organization helped pay for newspaper ads accusing Pryor's opponents of attacking him for “deeply held Catholic beliefs.” The ads showed a courthouse door with a sign reading: “Catholics need not apply.”

The ads ran in Rhode Island and Maine, two heavily Catholic states that also are home to moderate Republican senators crucial to Pryor's chances of winning final Senate approval. They were sponsored by Ave Maria List, a Catholic anti-abortion organization, and The Committee for Justice, a Washington-based group that promotes Bush's judicial nominees.

“This issue has been bubbling between the parties for a long time, and we're calling attention to it,” said Sean Rushton, the committee's executive director.

Although Rushton stopped short of labeling Democratic lawmakers anti-Catholic, he said that by consistently opposing nominees for views on abortion and other issues stemming from their faith, the legislators are attempting “to scrub the square clean of religion and religious people.” A radio blitz has followed the newspaper ads, he said, and the committee is considering expanding the campaign to other states.

Meanwhile, religious leaders have taken up the fight to keep issues of faith outside the discussion of a judicial nominee's competence. At a briefing at the Senate held by the Interfaith Alliance–a coalition of 65 faith groups dedicated to fighting intolerance and extremism–Episcopal, Jewish, Baptist and Catholic leaders spoke out against the discussion of Pryor's religion, calling it inappropriate and unconstitutional.

“Religious values inform an appropriate patriotism and inspire political action,” said Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance. “But a person's religious identity should stand outside the purview of inquiry related to a judicial nominee's suitability for confirmation. The Constitution is clear: There shall be no religious tests for public service.”

Leahy said at the briefing the accusations of anti-Catholic bias leveled at Democrats by Pryor's supporters amounts to no more than a smear campaign.

Through a spokeswoman, Pryor would not comment on whether he approved of the tactics used on his behalf. While White House political strategist Karl Rove has made no secret of his eagerness to woo traditionally Democratic Catholic voters, Rushton denied coordination with the Bush administration.