Hypocritical Oath

Does the GOP have a litmus test for judges or doesn’t it?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Conservatives around the country are pressing judicial candidates to answer questions about their personal religious practices and views on abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, and other controversies likely to come before their courts. But in Congress last fall, when Democrats attempted to probe Supreme Court nominees’ stances on these same issues, the GOP cried foul. No one, they said, should apply a single-issue “litmus test” to discern a nominee’s qualifications for the court. Should we count on seeing these indignant senators and conservative leaders push the GOP to stop holding state judges to a different standard?

“I have no litmus test.… In my interviews with any judge, I never ask their personal opinion on the subject of abortion.” —President George W. Bush

“A person’s personal beliefs are irrelevant, or should be irrelevant, in terms of how they’re going to approach their job as a judge.” —Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

“Politicians must let voters know what they think about issues before the election. Judges should not.” —Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)

“What judges do limits what judicial nominees may discuss.… Nominees may not be able to answer questions that seek hints, forecasts, or previews about how they would rule on particular issues.… No matter how badly senators want to know things, judicial nominees are limited in what they may discuss.” —Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)

“Nominees shouldn’t be expected to pre-commit to ruling on certain issues in a certain way, nor should senators ask nominees to pledge to rule on cases in a particular way.” —Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

“If you pledge today to rule a certain way on an issue, how can parties to future cases possibly feel that they would ever have a fair day in court?” —Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)

“We should not have a litmus test on judges.” —Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.)

“We must never abandon our ideal of unbiased judges, judges who rule fairly without regard to politics.” —Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)

“Let me suggest that a member who votes against this nominee because he will not state his position on a specific case or ruling is voting against an unbiased judiciary. In other words, they want a bias in the Court to fit their political beliefs.” —Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend