Go listen to Nina Totenberg's story on yesterday's vote in the judiciary committee on sending Pryor to a vote- and explain to me why I shouldn't think the GOP are a bunch of thugs.
This commercial sent out by the GOP, declaring that the Democrats are discriminating against Pryor because of his Catholicism is especially distressing, because of the layers of intellectual dishonesty involved. Listen to Totenberg's story to see why.
The commercial, put out by a group supporting President Bush's judicial nominees, showed a locked courthouse door with a sign reading, "Catholics need not apply." During Pryor's confirmation hearings, Senator Hatch, asked him to acknowledge that his beliefs stemmed from his strict Catholicism. The beliefs being those of anti-abortion and favoring policies to further the role of Christianity in public life. The GOP ad bluntly says that the Democrats, because of Pryor's Catholicism, are blocking the nominee.
Hmmm...the GOP and that 'technically true' thinking: Here, the GOP is asserting a discriminatory effect- because Catholicism doctine opposes abortion, and becasue Democrats traditionally oppose anti-abortion judges, the Democrats oppose Catholics. Pretty nifty reasoning, ain't it?
Of course, that's B.S. Democrats don't oppose anti-abortion judges, they oppose judges that rule on their own principles rather than the principle of law. One's beliefs regarding abortion should never dictate their role as judge- and any Democrat that turns down a nominee on that belief I will disagree with forever. However, it is certainly right to have concerns about a judge who was nominated largely because of his anti-abortion views- and with the expectation that the judge would rule in accordance with those views. Why, it is perfectly obvious to wonder, is this belief such a qualifying criteria in the selection of judges? Namely, does the nomination of judges who despise Roe v. Wade arise out of an academic agrement that that decision was a mess- or does it arise out of a mutual hatred of abortion, and an expectation that the judge will do whatever possible to end abortion? If this is the case, the judge is an activist who cares more about his agenda than about the particular case before him.
Further, as was mentioned in the comittee meeting, Cathlolics oppose the death penalty. And even though Antonin Scalia gave a speech once arguing that those opposed to the death penalty should perhaps not be judges, I submit that such judges make perfectly wonderful judges to the extent that their belief does not capture their legal mind. Is Scalia anti-Catholic for his remarks? Seeing that he is a Catholic, I doubt it. I'm guessing that he is arguing that the anti-death penalty belief causes judges to slip into activist roles. Much is similar to anti-abortion judges. The Dems should have Scalia explain all this to the GOP.

Perhaps I should summarize my complaints as such: it is too simplistic to "wave the bloody shirt" of discrimination in this circumstance. Or more directly, it is a corrupt deception.

Note: I am being overly simplistic on the Scalia/Catholicism/death penalty discussion. For greater depth, see the forum in the National Catholic register here, and here.