Go Cathy go

If you oppose one or another agenda item of the organized religious right these days, you’re apt to get accused of “anti-religious bigotry”. Gordon Smith (Apr. 26) provides a handy summary with links of the current flap over judicial nominations. Longtime readers will find it little surprise that I think Cathy Young (“An ugly new […]

If you oppose one or another agenda item of the organized religious right these days, you’re apt to get accused of “anti-religious bigotry”. Gordon Smith (Apr. 26) provides a handy summary with links of the current flap over judicial nominations. Longtime readers will find it little surprise that I think Cathy Young (“An ugly new chapter in the religious wars”, Boston Globe, Apr. 25) has the better of the argument (also check out Mark Kleiman, Apr. 26) while Prof. Bainbridge is barking up a desperately wrong tree (Apr. 25) when he declares that Senate Democrats’ actions have a disparate impact on nominees “of faith”; the disparate-impact concept has done enough damage already in the realm of employment discrimination law without encouraging it to debilitate the rest of American discourse.

P.S. Were I a Senator I would no doubt happily vote to confirm most of the disputed nominees. But between the Schiavo case and the collaboration of Hill Republicans in demagogic events like “Justice Sunday”, is it any wonder GOP popularity is plummeting?

One Comment

  • We get mail on judges

    Reader responses to my post Judicial Nominations and Disparate Impact. I pass them along without comment for the sake of presenting a wider array of opposing (and supporting) views: Walter Olson emailed a copy of his post on the subject: