Senator Hatch on Religious Liberty

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah recently published a post on the Harvard Law Review Blog on the status of religious liberty in America. Senator Hatch writes about how the concept of religious liberty used to be a noncontroversial issue that garnered bipartisan support. However, those days are gone and the result is raising issues that go against the principles espoused by our Founding Fathers:

Religious liberty was, in several critical ways, the first freedom of our system. Its explicit protection is the first injunction commanded by the First Amendment. Ingrained deeply in our culture and in our institutions, its expression has proven central to the national character. Our Constitution allows no establishment of religion, and permits no undue restraint upon its exercise, such that our citizens may make their own determinations on matters of conscience.

This basic principle used to be widely shared. It used to be one of the few matters that spanned the divide . . . And yet today, where do we find ourselves? In a recent judicial confirmation hearing, a nominee was asked, explicitly, “do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” That same nominee was told that, upon review of her record, “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.” Statements like that can be taken only as the imposition of some kind of religious test for holding office. Nothing could be more repugnant to our values of religious freedom and liberty.

Senator Hatch noted this shift is a fairly recent one, noting that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) garnered near-unanimous support in both chambers of Congress.  He continued by referencing recent major court decisions and growing pressures being added to stresses put upon our right to religious liberty:

In cases like Trinity Lutheran and controversies from Hobby Lobby to the Zubik v. Burwell [case], there is a new pressure on those living and espousing their faith. And yet, unlike in the past, there is no longer a chorus of voices — from both sides of the aisle — standing up for religious liberty. There is no longer a broad, bipartisan agreement that religious rights are not to be tampered with, demeaned, overlooked, or casually brushed aside. More and more, religious liberty is treated as an afterthought to those making policy and as an inconvenience to those carrying it out. More and more, it proves a quick rhetorical box to check before moving on to matters deemed more important.

Senator Hatch cautions if religious liberty is not protected, it could be lost and its impact widely felt. In its wake, a new standard would be imposed on all Americans that would curtail their First Amendment rights.

This country’s protection of religious liberty — unique in the world and through most of history — is too rare, and was won upon the sacrifice of too many, to be quietly disregarded for falling out of the popularity of the times. I, for one, plan to keep speaking to this issue . . . Religious liberty is a bedrock principle of the American political order. Its protection is of the highest order and the greatest priority. It is not merely one of many values, to be weighed against other competing social and political goals, and discarded when inconvenient.

Senator Orrin Hatch has been a staunch advocate of religious liberty during his long Senate career. Even today, President Trump while in Utah was encouraging Senator Hatch to run for reelection. The RNLA thanks Senator Hatch for his outspoken efforts to defend and preserve our religious liberty and his leadership in the Senate.

Judicial Nominations: Democrats Have Nothing But Character Attacks

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in the Daily Caller about how Senate Democrats are attacking and delaying President Trump's excellent judicial nominees:

Thirty years ago, the Senate rejected Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court after a series of unprecedented and often untrue attacks by Democrats on one of the nation’s foremost legal scholars.  Today, the Democrats and their allies are arguably treating judicial nominees worse.  For while the attacks were one-sided, the vote to defeat Judge Bork was at least bipartisan.  Today, Democrats and their allies make no such efforts to actually defeat nominees they do not like; instead, they attempt to obstruct and sully the character of nominees.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley have expertly led the Senate and are not allowing the Democrats to prevail:

Fortunately, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley does not have unlimited patience with Democrats’ games and obstruction.  Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Grassley, 18 nominees are now on the floor awaiting a vote.  And the need is great.  There are still over 140 vacancies on the federal bench, with 64 classified as judicial emergencies. 

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has also tired of Senate Democrats’ partisanship and has made the confirmation of judges a priority, with four Circuit Court nominees to be confirmed by the end of this week.  As of publication, the new Judge Barrett of the Seventh Circuit and Judge Larsen of the Sixth Circuit have just been confirmed. 

Despite the Democrats’ obstruction and delays, Chairman Grassley and Leader McConnell are keeping the process moving, understanding how important these principled nominees are to the American people.  Democrats have forced cloture votes on all confirmed judicial nominees from President Trump, compared to none at this point in the Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, or Reagan administrations.  Of course, these cloture votes are simply a delaying tactic, since the Democrats abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations lower than Supreme Court in 2013.

Mr. Thielen provides examples from several currently pending and recently confirmed nominees, including Scott Palk, just confirmed for the Western District of Oklahoma; David Stras, nominated for the Eighth Circuit; Ryan Bounds, nominated for the Ninth Circuit; Amy Barrett, just confirmed to the Seventh Circuit; and Steven Grasz, nominated to the Eighth Circuit.  Democrats have baselessly attacked all of them, including Palk who was first nominated to the seat by President Obama, but Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley are working to ensure that all these superb nominees are confirmed.

Personal Attacks Are All Liberals Have Against Trump Nominees

RNLA Vice President for Election Education David Warrington wrote today in the Daily Caller about the shameful and bizarre personal attacks against President Trump's nominees made by liberals and establishment Democrats:

Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  He has over seven years of judicial opinions and six years of legal scholarship to scrutinize.  But instead of examining his record, liberal organizations have dismissed him as a “right-wing ideologue” who is simply a pawn of organizations like The Federalist Society. . . .

Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Barrett, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was likely surprised to discover during her confirmation hearing that her sincerely held Catholic beliefs might disqualifyher, as a conservative, from holding judicial office, at least according to Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Texas attorney Trey Trainor, nominated to the Federal Election Commission last week, also quickly came under fire for his sincerely held Catholic beliefs.  Like all the other nominees, Trainor’s true transgression is his conservative and libertarian views, particularly his vocal support for First Amendment rights and distrust of government bureaucrats’ efforts to regulate political speech.  The vast majority of the American people share these views—liberals also used to value the First Amendment—yet they have been painted as radical enough to disqualify Trainor from public service. . . .

These attacks are not based on an honest review of any nominee’s scholarship, policy views, work history, associations, or character but instead are based on the nominee having been nominated by Trump, having mainstream conservative or libertarian views, and being supported by conservatives and libertarians.  They seriously degrade our public discourse and prevent productive discussions and debates about a nominee’s policy views.

The piece closes by thanking those willing to serve our country despite the personal attacks that will be made against them simply for being nominated by President Trump and being conservative or libertarian.  These nominees are superb and we are immensely grateful.

Senate Dems and the Left's Attacks on Judicial Nominees Raises Eyebrows

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings for two circuit court and two district court nominees, along with the Eric Drieband and his nomination to head DOJ's Civil Rights Division. The district court nominees were largely left unquestioned, with Senator Feinstein stating that their records largely "speaks for itself."

However, the Democratic Senators and left wing groups focused the brunt of their baseless attacks on the Circuit Court nominees Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larson for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ed Whelan of the National Review called the hearings line of these efforts "hilarious" and "buffoonery" despite having outstanding credentials and bipartisan praise for their nominations. Mr. Whelan writes:

For example, People For the American Way complains of Larsen: "Also of concern is the signal Larsen sent about her conservative ideology during her campaign for the Michigan Supreme Court last year. Her website stated that “judges should interpret the laws according to what they say, not according to what the judges wish they would say. Judges are supposed to interpret the laws; they are not supposed to make them.” This is coded language used by ultra-conservative jurists and activists to signal a willingness to issue rulings that (among other things) do not recognize the constitutional right to abortion or the fundamental humanity and equality of LGBTQ people." [Emphasis added.]

Yeah, sure. And Justice Sotomayor was using that same “coded language” when she testified at her confirmation hearing that “The task of a judge is not to make the law—it is to apply the law.” And so did Justice Kagan when she proclaimed that “we are all textualists now" . . . [and] countless other Democratic judicial appointees over the years. 

The Alliance for Justice claims that Barrett “believes and has stated that judges can and should put their personal beliefs ahead of the law and Constitution when carrying out their duties.” It cites its own report as authority for that claim. But when you finally get past AFJ’s repetition of that claim to its actual report, you learn that AFJ is complaining that “in a 1998 law review article, Barrett argued that federal judges who are faithful to Catholic teaching should recuse themselves from capital cases because they are morally precluded from considering or imposing the death penalty.” (Emphasis added.) (The law-review article is here; AFJ doesn’t bother to include a link.) . . . In short, far from arguing that “judges can and should put their personal beliefs ahead of the law and Constitution when carrying out their duties,” Barrett was arguing that Catholic judges “are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty” and should therefore recuse themselves from cases in which they might be required to do so. . . .

As Barrett’s co-author John H. Garvey—former Notre Dame law professor and current president of Catholic University—writes in an op-ed today, “I never thought I’d see the day when a coalition of left-wing groups attacked a Republican judicial nominee for opposing the death penalty.” Even more amazing is that AFJ adopts the loopy position that a judge who complies with recusal obligations is placing himself “at odds with the very essence of the [judicial] oath.”

Instead of looking at qualifications of President Trump's judicial nominees, the Democrats rather use innuendo in an attempt to besmudge their credentials as part of their attempt to obstruct  the Trump Administrations efforts to govern and fill vital openings in our judicial system.