Attack update: Oct. 6, 2006The attack: “It seems to speak about her view of judicial activism.” Significance: Brownback apparently believes that participation in a private religious ceremony presided over by a minister and having no legal effect may rule out service on the federal bench. Neff gave a homily, but did not preside over the ceremony, which had no legal effect, and took place in Massachusetts prior to the Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision that supported marriage equality. Conflating participation in a commitment ceremony with “judicial activism” seems to break new ground in the campaign against the courts. If Brownback’s standard were accepted, then, in a different context, it might be a problem for judicial nominees to participate in weddings presided over by ministers who oppose reproductive rights, or for nominees themselves to be members of churches that oppose reproductive rights. Relatedly, Brownback’s position raises disturbing questions about religious freedom and a “religious test” for service on the federal bench. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The First Amendment protects free exercise of religion. Update: As of Nov. 26, 2006, Brownback continues to block Neff’s nomination, saying with regard to Neff’s participation in the commitment ceremony: “What I want to know is, what does it do to her look at the law? What does she consider the law on same-sex marriage, on civil unions? And I’d want to consider that.” Neff has declined to answer questions about whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage or civil unions, noting it would be improper to address questions that might come before her as a federal judge. Read more. Update: December 19, 2006: good news, as Brownback removed his hold and now says he will allow a vote on Neff’s nomination.
|
