Our esteemed US Senate confirmed what appears to be one of President Bush's most extreme judicial nominees yesterday. Though some groups are quick to cite alleged anti-Catholic bias for Democratic opposition to Holmes (as they do for just about any conservative nominee who happens to be Catholic), his comments are pretty hard to defend, even for administration apologists.
Rather than cite the "liberal" New York Times, I'll offer the assessment of the right-wing Fox News [sic] Channel It reported that Holmes apologized for writing in 1980 that rape victims rarely get pregnant, calling them a "red herring" in the debate over abortion. But Holmes said his 1997 comparison of the Catholic Church's subservient relationship with Jesus Christ to a wife's duties to her husband was unfairly taken out of context. In an article he co-authored with his wife, he said a wife has an obligation "to subordinate herself to her husband" and "to place herself under the authority of the man."
Perahps this is true, but he's asking for a huge benefit of the doubt for a post with a life term. Conservative Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson was not convinced, as she pushed to cast her first vote against a Bush judicial nominee. "He [Holmes] doesn't have the fundamental commitment to the total equality of women in our society," explained the senior senator from Texas.
FNC also noted, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania believes, however, that Holmes is being unfairly singled out for possessing conservative religious views shared by millions of Americans.
If this is the case, then let Holmes judge those millions of Americans and leave the rest of us alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment