Bush's latest appointee believes women should be subservient
 

WASHINGTON -- Reading from the Bible on the floor of the Senate on Tuesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch endorsed a federal judicial nominee who wrote that wives should have a subordinate role in marriage, with the Utah Republican emphasizing "millions and millions of people will agree with" that view.
In a preview of the religious rhetoric that will likely dominate next week's scheduled Senate debate over a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Hatch led the fight for confirming Arkansas lawyer J. Leon Holmes to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
With Hatch's support and that of Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, Holmes was confirmed 51-46 in the Senate on Tuesday evening, even though many members of the Senate predicted his nomination would be rejected.
Holmes' writing on abortion, marriage, slavery and other theological issues generated opposition from not only many Democrats but also some Republicans.
Fueling much of the debate is a 1997 article Holmes and his wife, Susan, wrote for Arkansas Catholic magazine titled, "Gender Neutral Language, Destroying an Essential Element of Our Faith." The couple wrote that under Catholic teaching, "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in marriage and "is to subordinate herself to the husband."
Senate Democrats who are also members of the Roman Catholic faith, such as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, have said the positions taken by Holmes "reflect a narrow view of the Catholic theology and do not embody contemporary standards that should be followed by any federal judge in any state."
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., lashed out at Durbin's criticism during floor debate.
"We hear so much from the other side about tolerance," said Santorum. "Where is the tolerance for people who want to believe what has been taught for 2,000 years?"


http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07072004/utah/181590.asp

Got to love relgious nuts running our court system.

I can't really comment b/c I don't no the entire story, but as for the religious nuts running our courts you're absolutely correct. For the most part these nuts are located in the 9th circuit of appeals located in San Francisco (the most liberal and a mockery of our judicial system). These radical judges cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year by enforcing their radical political agenda on ridiculuous cases.

Hatch disgusts me. That SOB is so in the pocket of corporations. Example: He's actually proposed legislation to try to make music piracy something you can go to jail for. I wonder what the RIAA donates to his campaign? That among other things. The guy is a total crook. Of course, it's not like any Democrat in Utah stands a chance, so he can do whatever he wants.

Is this the same guy that proposed the amendment to allow foreign-born citizens to become President?

What's wrong with that?

I'm not trying to start a debate about whether or not something is or is not wrong with that. I just wanted to know if this was the same guy.

Do you know?

No clue

Another giant leap backwards.

I think Santorum's comments were very relevant:

Hatch did propose such an amendment about the Presidency -- Senate Joint Resolution 15. I've linked the full text. I couldn't find the final disposition of the proposed amendment. I guess since the session is over, the amendment is dead.

There have been a few similar amendments proposed in the House.

"Tolerance" is important. I strongly believe in it.

However, the Federal Judiciary is so powerful that I think it is fair to look at and debate anything (well, maybe I'd better think about that -- but at least almost anything) in a nominees background.

These are the folks who interpret our laws and Constitution -- and they are appointed for life. It's pretty tough to get one impeached.

I am Catholic, and I am not subservient to anyone.

Just because he said something like that, I don't see how it necessarily reflects on the way he interprets laws. The best judges are those that can put aside their own values and judge the law by the law. I don't know how well he does that. I'd be more interested in that than what religion he is, or what he has said in public.

Of course, a judge saying something like that in public is kind of irresponsible in my opinion. Of course, the article doesn't really provide us with what context he said that in, what setting, what audience. It could have been perfectly appropriate.

The Trinity.

"conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami."


Are you kidding me? And this guy wants to be in the court system. I think not!


He sounds like an uneducated moron.

Yep. The rule is husbands love your wives, wives obey your husbands. Obey does not mean "be enslaved by" or "be subservient to." It means "respect your husbands." In the Bible, wives aren't even required to love their husbands, just to respect them.