One major part of the American political system is the federal judiciary, which by virtue of the separation of powers is considered a co-equal branch of government with Congress and the Executive. Due to it's importance, who gets to be a judge and who doesn't is a major point of conflict, and in our present times it tends to be based on partisan politics. Sadly, there are growing instances where certain members of congress are questioning the religious background of judicial nominees.
On December 5, Harris posed a series of written questions to Brian Buescher, President Trump's nominee for District Court in Nebraska. The third question reads as follows:
Since 1993, you have been a member of the Knights of Columbus, an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men. In 2016, Carl Anderson, leader of the Knights of Columbus, described abortion as ‘a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths.' Mr. Anderson went on to say that ‘abortion is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale.' Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman's right to choose when you joined the organization?
Harris wasn't finished. Follow-ups included "Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?" and "Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women's reproductive rights?"
Kamala Harris (Democratic senator from California), took considerable issue with a nominee that was simply a member of a famous Catholic organization. It may be a surprise, but the Knights of Columbus are Catholic and are going to officially support Catholic social teaching. If senator Harris takes issue with the KoC, she takes issue with the Catholic Church. In other words, if being a member of the KoC is enough to throw a nominee's impartiality into question, than so is being a member of the Catholic Church.
What Kamala Harris is suggesting is that membership in a 2 million-strong, 136-year-old Catholic social organization disqualifies an individual from the federal bench.
This is not an isolated occurrence.
She [Harris] was joined in this line of questioning by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. The even worse news is that plenty of Senate Democrats agree with them. They've adopted a strategy of interrogating President Trump's judicial nominees about Catholic beliefs and associations. It began in September 2017 when Dianne Feinstein told Amy Coney Barrett, now confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's a concern."
Last March, Feinstein demanded to know if Michael Scudder, now confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, worked with his parish "to establish a residential crisis pregnancy center." Last May, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asked Peter J. Phipps, now confirmed as a district court judge, about the Knights. Last October, Feinstein, Harris, and three other Democrats wanted to know about the relationship between Fourth Circuit nominee Allison Jones Rushing and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit that supports religious liberty. Last November, Feinstein asked Third Circuit nominee Paul Matey, "If confirmed, will you recuse yourself from all cases in which the Knights of Columbus have taken a position?"
Whitehouse singled out McFadden's church, Falls Church Anglican, for its opposition to same-sex marriage. Whitehouse asked if McFadden agreed with statements made by his pastor. "It would be improper for me to state my personal opinions," McFadden responded in writing.
These are not isolated incidents, but repeated manifestations of what can only be considered religious tests. These are not low-level officials, but prominent senators with powerful positions in their party. Citing a nominee's religious background as a supposed reason for partiality is a direct religious test.
In one case, the religious test was so obvious that a congresswoman of the same party had to criticize another member of her party's conduct.
When Alexis de Tocqueville visited America, he was struck not only by the religiosity of our people. He also noticed their penchant for association. Here was true diversity, a genuine pluralism of belief and practice. The ‘new liberalism‘ that is said to be ascendant in the Democratic Party undermines these twin pillars of American exceptionalism—religion and civil society—to advance the (quite brittle) cultural consensus that reigns in the megalopolis.
No longer is the debate over Christianity in the public square. It is over Christians in the public square. And this is an argument in which people of every faith have a stake in the outcome.
My opinion on this is rather evident. Religious association is not a valid source for political critique. This goes for all religions. It makes sense that Rep. Gabbard criticized the religious questions, since she is part of a tiny religious minority of Hinduism in America. Before it inevitably comes up, the situation in Texas involving people not wanting a Muslim to be an official is another obvious example of an unconstitutional and immoral religious test.
Wise council of NSG, what do you think of this trend? Should those darn Christians be pushed out of the public sphere? Is this just making a mountain out of a mole hill? Should officials that employ religious tests be more openly criticized?