Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-16-2002, 12:02 PM

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mcconnell16sep16.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnatio n" target="_blank">"Liberals at Odds Over Appeals Court Nominee"</a>

Quote:

Unlike most academics, McConnell has argued issues that have had a clear effect on the law. He has been an architect of a broad shift in the law on religion, a move away from the strict separation of church and state and toward a doctrine of equal treatment for religion.

In law review articles, he argued that the framers of the Constitution did not intend a strict separation of church and state. He also advocated this view successfully in a series of cases before the Supreme Court. For example, he won a 5-4 high court ruling that evangelical Christian students at a state university deserved the same subsidy for their campus magazine as student groups that promoted causes such as environmentalism.

The University of Virginia had argued that the Constitution barred it from using state funds to promote Christianity, but the court said equal treatment and free speech for the Christian students is not the same as government favoritism for religion.

Two years ago, McConnell won a similar ruling that allowed the nation's parochial schools to receive federal aid for buying computers on the same basis as other private and public schools. This decision paved the way for the high court decision in June that upheld Ohio's voucher law under which parents can obtain tuition aid to send their children to religious schools.

In his writings and legal arguments, McConnell stressed that he favored a "genuine equality of rights" in matters involving religion, but that he did not support a return to school-sponsored prayers or Bible readings. "Toleration of the expression of others does not come easily, but toleration must be even-handed. I am hard-pressed to understand why traditionalist citizens should be expected to tolerate the use of their tax dollars for lewd and sacrilegious art, while others go to court to ban nativity scenes from public property at Christmas," he told a House committee considering prayer in schools.

McConnell is putting a humane face on the efforts to break down the barriers between church and state, and use tax dollars to support evangelization. The idea that this is just "fair play for Christians", that they not only have free speech rights (which no one denies) but that their speech can be subsidized by the government, is very dangerous. It is the opening wedge in diverting more of your tax dollars to religious institutions.

<a href="http://www.au.org/press/pr5901.htm" target="_blank">Americans United for Separation of Church and State</a> has opposed his nomination (and disputes the idea that he has not called for a return to school prayer.)

Quote:

McConnell is a member of the Christian Legal Society, a board member of the Federalist Society and an advisor of the Becket Fund -- all groups seeking a radical abandonment of individual rights.

AU's Lynn said McConnell has a long record of extremism on a broad range of individual rights issues. Lynn pointed to the following examples:

* McConnell has called for a "radical" departure from decades of church-state separation rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, (March 11, 2000, Salt Lake Tribune) and has indicated his support for public school prayer, voucher aid to religious schools and charitable choice aid to ministries.

* McConnell insists that the Constitution allows broad public funding of religious institutions. "We must therefore reject the central animating idea of modern Establishment Clause analysis: that taxpayers have a constitutional right to insist that none of their taxes be used for religious purposes." (Winter 1992, University of Chicago Law Review)

* McConnell has described church-state separation as never having been a "plausible or attractive conception of proper relations between government and religion in the modern activist state." In areas where there is common concern of religious and governmental institutions, McConnell has argued that the First Amendment principle is "either meaningless, or (worse) is a prescription for secularization of areas of life that are properly pluralistic." (1999, Utah Law Review)

* McConnell has said religion cannot be separated from other areas. "Many people think that it's possible to have an entirely secular education and any religious training can be on the side. I don't believe that religion is something which is a separable aspect of life." (Jan. 30, 2000, New York Times Magazine)

* McConnell criticized several recent Supreme Court rulings that upheld church-state separation, including Lee v. Weisman (1992), which prohibited government-sponsored prayer at school graduation ceremonies, and County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989), which limited government endorsement of religious displays on public property. He said these decisions "have nothing to do with freedom of religion. There is not a single person in these cases who has been hindered or discouraged by government action from following a religious practice or way of life." (Jan.-Feb. 1993, American Enterprise)

* McConnell has suggested that the majority of Americans aren't religious enough for his tastes. Discussing his views on people of non-Christian faiths, he said, "I have respect and maybe even affection for people who are struggling to understand God. Even if I think that they are looking in the wrong place, I still think they are doing something which is very important and quite different from the great mass of people who are simply trying to make more money or have more pleasure in their lives." (March 11, 2000, Salt Lake Tribune)

* McConnell has argued several cases at the Supreme Court, advocating increased public aid to private religious schools (Mitchell v. Helms, 2000) and public university assistance for religious publications (Rosenberger v. Virginia, 1995).

* McConnell praised Attorney General John Ashcroft's 1999 remarks at Bob Jones University as "beautiful." (In his remarks at the controversial school, Ashcroft said the source of America's character is "godly and eternal" and "We have no king but Jesus.") McConnell said Ashcroft "is saying freedom flourishes and the equality of human beings flourish when man is subordinate to God." (Jan. 13, 2001, Los Angeles Times)

* McConnell bitterly opposes Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court rulings upholding abortion rights. Denouncing the court's "extreme vision of abortion rights," McConnell said, the court can deny legal protection "to fetuses only if it presupposes they are not persons.... One can make a pretty convincing argument, however, that fetuses are persons. They are alive; their species is Homo sapiens." (Jan. 22, 1998, Wall Street Journal)

* McConnell also signed a 1996 "Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern," which calls for the high court to overturn Roe and urges Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning all abortions, including those involving rape and incest. The statement claims that "abortion kills 1.5 million innocent human beings in America every year," and mourns the fact that some fathers "watch their children killed against their will" and "learn to their distress only much later that a child they would have raised is dead." (The America We Seek, Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern: 1996)

* In 1987, McConnell was an aggressive advocate of Robert Bork's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. McConnell said "there is no more distinguished jurist in the land" than Bork and criticized the prospects of Supreme Court nominees who are "unknown, muddleheaded middle-of-the-roaders." (July 12, 1987, Newsday)

Observed AU's Lynn, "After looking at his record, McConnell starts to make Bork look moderate. This man wants to gut the constitutional protections that Americans count on. He's the wrong man for the job."

4th Generation Atheist · 09-16-2002, 01:45 PM

Another one. Sigh.

You know, until we can get the Confederates out of the Administration we aren't going to get a nominee that isn't like this. How long can we stall it? Sooner or later the whole court system will be theirs, unless we make it a priority to beat the fundie boobs in every possible election. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Stephen Maturin · 09-17-2002, 04:37 AM

McConnell's views on church-state separation are bad news for separationists. Unfortunately, though, his nomination to the Tenth Circuit appears to be getting lots of support. There's a brief description of McConnell's stance on CSS and other issues in this <a href="http://www.tnr.com/061801/rosen061801.html" target="_blank">TNR editorial</a>. The author, Jeffrey Rosen, contends that "McConnell's views on church-state separation aren't just innocuous, they're praiseworthy." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Not surprisingly, he's also gotten substantial support from his fellow <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/michaelmcconnellsupportletter.htm" target="_blank">academics</a>.

McConnell's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee will take place tomorrow. Apparently, Pat Leahy will chair the hearing himself (rather than turn it over to Ted Kennedy, as was previously reported).

galiel · 09-18-2002, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4th Generation Atheist:
Another one. Sigh.

You know, until we can get the Confederates out of the Administration we aren't going to get a nominee that isn't like this. How long can we stall it? Sooner or later the whole court system will be theirs, unless we make it a priority to beat the fundie boobs in every possible election.

Yes. But, of course, we spend half our time trying to fend off our freethinking brethren here who are hell-bent on convincing us that "the problem isn't political", that "Separation isn't an issue", that organizing and protesting will just alarm people and "blow up in our faces", and that we all just need to "get along" with theists and show them the kind face of atheism, to make up for the 'guilty horror' of O'Hair. (I suppose the Scopes Trial is a source of embarassment as well. How insensitive of us to impose our reason on the irrational world.)

They can't imagine what it will be like when we are responded to with the "kind" face of Scalia, and the likes of McConnell (shudder).

We are facing the most activist, radical, interpretationalist court in decades, cynically hidden behind a "conservative" front. And people here are soo afraid of offending anyone, they want to just hide in the closet and, yes, "pray" for understanding. I find that kind of attitude, as you probably do too, even more offensive (and dengerous) than theism itself.

Reminds me of "enlightened" Germany between the world wars.

GaryP · 09-18-2002, 03:22 PM

I also heard on NPR today that many liberal academics support him.

Although as Nina Totenberg (sp) said, after reading more of his opinions some are backing away.

But none of them have officially taken their name off the endorsement list.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: GaryP ]

Krieger · 09-18-2002, 03:44 PM

What do they mean by "liberal"? Just because they're "academics"? Hah, they're just more reactionaries playing "liberal".

GaryP · 09-18-2002, 03:54 PM

Could be. But I think that a lot of these guys tend to stick together and admire others who are at or above their intelligence level.

Layman · 09-18-2002, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin:
McConnell's views on church-state separation are bad news for separationists. Unfortunately, though, his nomination to the Tenth Circuit appears to be getting lots of support. There's a brief description of McConnell's stance on CSS and other issues in this <a href="http://www.tnr.com/061801/rosen061801.html" target="_blank">TNR editorial</a>. The author, Jeffrey Rosen, contends that "McConnell's views on church-state separation aren't just innocuous, they're praiseworthy." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Not surprisingly, he's also gotten substantial support from his fellow <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/michaelmcconnellsupportletter.htm" target="_blank">academics</a>.

Yep. "But most observers of the confirmation process acknowledge it will be very hard to stop the McConnell nomination. He has been endorsed by 304 law professors."

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63414,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63414,00.html</a>

"In fact, three high-profile liberal professors � the University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein, Harvard's Elena Kagan, and the University of Texas's Douglas Laycock � joined Dinh in speaking to reporters (Sunstein and Kagan by conference call). All vouched for McConnell. "He is excellent and not an ideologue," said Sunstein. "He is not an ideologue; he will adhere to the law," said Kagan. "He's not an extremist or an ideologue," said Laycock. Justice officials also handed out a letter supporting McConnell signed by 300 law professors."

<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091802.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091802.asp</a>

He's also received a unanimous "well-qualified" vote from the ABA.

Toto · 09-18-2002, 05:38 PM

I just heard McConnell on NPR. He told the committee that the right to privacy was settled law (Roe v. Wade is based on a right to privacy that critics like McConnell think is not based on the rule of law.) He said he thought that the Clinic Defense Act was constitutional. He was grilled about an outrageous article he wrote applauding the "courage" of a judge who acquitted two clinic protesters in the face of the evidence, and I thought his answer was a bit weaselly.

Nina Totenberg said that his nomination was pretty much assured after he supported the right to privacy, but that the vote might be delayed until next year.

I recall listening to a the hearings on Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. When Bork was asked about Roe v. Wade, he tried to say that it was stare decisis, but he audibly choked on the words, and could barely say them. McConnell was a lot smoother, and didn't miss a beat. But I wonder if someone with such an ideological record will really be the scholarly neutral judge that his academic colleagues hope for, or if more of them can be induced to read what he actually has written.

4th Generation Atheist · 09-19-2002, 12:34 PM

Hm. I scanned that list and while some illustrious institutions are represented, I saw a lot of Utah, Brigham Young &c.---and an awful lot of same-last-names. How was that list publicized, and how did those particular professors decide to sign it?

09-18-2002, 03:22 PM	#5
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	I also heard on NPR today that many liberal academics support him. Although as Nina Totenberg (sp) said, after reading more of his opinions some are backing away. But none of them have officially taken their name off the endorsement list. [ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: GaryP ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-16-2002, 01:45 PM	#2
4th Generation Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tower of Ecthelion...by the Starbuck's Posts: 1,815	Another one. Sigh. You know, until we can get the Confederates out of the Administration we aren't going to get a nominee that isn't like this. How long can we stall it? Sooner or later the whole court system will be theirs, unless we make it a priority to beat the fundie boobs in every possible election. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

09-17-2002, 04:37 AM	#3
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	McConnell's views on church-state separation are bad news for separationists. Unfortunately, though, his nomination to the Tenth Circuit appears to be getting lots of support. There's a brief description of McConnell's stance on CSS and other issues in this <a href="http://www.tnr.com/061801/rosen061801.html" target="_blank">TNR editorial</a>. The author, Jeffrey Rosen, contends that "McConnell's views on church-state separation aren't just innocuous, they're praiseworthy." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Not surprisingly, he's also gotten substantial support from his fellow <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/michaelmcconnellsupportletter.htm" target="_blank">academics</a>. McConnell's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee will take place tomorrow. Apparently, Pat Leahy will chair the hearing himself (rather than turn it over to Ted Kennedy, as was previously reported).

09-18-2002, 03:44 PM	#6
Krieger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: ... Posts: 2,191	What do they mean by "liberal"? Just because they're "academics"? Hah, they're just more reactionaries playing "liberal".

09-18-2002, 03:54 PM	#7
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	Could be. But I think that a lot of these guys tend to stick together and admire others who are at or above their intelligence level.

09-18-2002, 05:38 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I just heard McConnell on NPR. He told the committee that the right to privacy was settled law (Roe v. Wade is based on a right to privacy that critics like McConnell think is not based on the rule of law.) He said he thought that the Clinic Defense Act was constitutional. He was grilled about an outrageous article he wrote applauding the "courage" of a judge who acquitted two clinic protesters in the face of the evidence, and I thought his answer was a bit weaselly. Nina Totenberg said that his nomination was pretty much assured after he supported the right to privacy, but that the vote might be delayed until next year. I recall listening to a the hearings on Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. When Bork was asked about Roe v. Wade, he tried to say that it was stare decisis, but he audibly choked on the words, and could barely say them. McConnell was a lot smoother, and didn't miss a beat. But I wonder if someone with such an ideological record will really be the scholarly neutral judge that his academic colleagues hope for, or if more of them can be induced to read what he actually has written.

09-19-2002, 12:34 PM	#10
4th Generation Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tower of Ecthelion...by the Starbuck's Posts: 1,815	Hm. I scanned that list and while some illustrious institutions are represented, I saw a lot of Utah, Brigham Young &c.---and an awful lot of same-last-names. How was that list publicized, and how did those particular professors decide to sign it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.