It's clear that President Bush and the Republicans would rather everyone know as little as possible about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts Jr. Was he a member of the secretive Federalist Society? Were his past writings indicative or his or someone else's views? Will his faith affect his judicial philosophies? The fewer answers we have to questions like those, the better Republicans feel about Roberts' chances. And they'd like to keep it that way.
As Roberts' confirmation battle approaches, the right is starting to coalesce around several key talking points. One of the most insidious, I think, is that by asking how Roberts' faith influences his life and work, Democrats are somehow using a religious litmus test. Asking if Roberts' allegiances lie with his Catholic teachings or the Constitution is, to Republicans, a completely inappropriate question.
Why?
Those accusing Democrats of a religious standard have a rather short memory. Weren't these the same people asking Democrats ranging from John F. Kennedy to John F. Kerry how their faith influenced their political views? In 1960, Kennedy, for instance, had to convince the Greater Houston Ministerial Association that he wouldn't blindly adhere to the Pope's teachings. More than forty years later, Kerry was accused by Republicans of being wrong for Catholics. If our candidates had to face the issue head on, why can't Roberts?
While we're at it, let's ask another question: If a Democrat was president and nominated a Muslim to the Supreme Court, what would happen? Would the nominee not have to face questions about faith or would all hell break loose? Would the nominee face day after day of intense questioning about his or her adherence to the Koran? Of course.
And let's quickly expose the Republicans' hypocrisy. Republicans accuse Democrats of having a religious litmus test; however, how do you think Roberts was chosen in the first place? Did President Bush have a few litmus tests of his own or did he, in the parlance of professional sports general managers, take the best player available? I doubt it. Bush and the Republicans wanted someone who suited their views, as well as those of Big Business and the Christian Taliban, who have been promised this moment since Bush has been in office. Sounds curiously like a litmus test, don't you think?
As Roberts has met with senators, never has this hypocrisy been more pronounced. When it was reported that Sen. Richard Durbin - one of the right's favorite targets - asked Roberts what he would do if the law required a decision that his faith declared immoral, the chattering class quickly rose to attack Durbin. While Tony Perkins, Robert Novak and other pundits were quick to slam Durbin, the New York Sun went so far as to opine, "Interrogating a nominee in respect of his religious beliefs is not only grossly inappropriate. It's unconstitutional."
What the right is forgetting, sadly, is that the same day Durbin asked Roberts about his faith, so too did Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. Roberts, the Associated Press reported, refused to answer Coburn's questions "about how his Catholic faith influences his life and work." So, was Coburn also being "grossly inappropriate"? Or was he just doing his job in the role of advice and consent? If you listen closely while waiting for the Republican criticism of Coburn, you might almost hear the crickets chirping.
And what's so wrong with these questions, anyway? Women have the right to know if Roberts plans to throw precedent out the window and destroy their right to choose. Americans have the right to know if Roberts' faith would prevent him from keeping contraception legal. And we have the right to know if Roberts' teachings preclude him from affording every American equal rights.
Ever since last November, Republicans are fond of saying that elections have consequences. This may be true - we're all feeling the effects of 2004 - but those consequences don't include the death of dissent, the loss of the right to ask important questions. Call it what you will, but what Roberts is about to go through amounts to little more than an old-fashioned job interview. When you interviewed for your last job, did your potential employer ask you tough questions? Or did he or she seem content to let you by with little to no scrutiny?
Letting Roberts by without asking him the important questions - including those about his faith - would do America a disservice. You can call it a litmus test; I'd rather call it what it is: Our duty.