CANDIDATE ACCUSES GRAHAM OF OPPOSING “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM”
U.S. Senate candidate Richard Cash criticized incumbent “Republican” Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.) for his support of U.S. President Barack Obama’s liberal Supreme Court justices.
Cash – one of several GOP candidates challenging Graham in the state’s June 10 primary – is an Upstate, S.C. businessman who has centered his campaign around social conservative issues. In a press release issued this week, he slammed Graham for supporting the nominations of liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – both of whom voted agains “religious freedom” in a recent case on government prayer.
The case – Greece v. Galloway – involves a small New York town which permitted sectarian prayer at its government meetings. By a 5-4 margin, the Court ruled such prayers are permitted – but Kagan and Sotomayor dissented.
“Lindsey Graham was the only Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote for Sotomayor and Kagan, both of who opposed religious liberty in this case,” Cash said in his statement. “Senator Graham states he will continue to vote for justices like these, and neither South Carolina nor the nation can afford additional judicial activists on the Supreme Court.”
Actually we like judicial activists … so long as they are actively striking down laws that erode our individual and economic liberties. That’s the job the Constitution envisioned for them.
Team Cash doesn’t see it that way though …
“If Graham remains in office and Obama or another Democrat president like Hillary Clinton selects another judicial activist as a Supreme Court Justice, then Graham will approve them,” Cash’s communications director Alex Hooper said. “This doesn’t bode well for religious freedom.”
We’re no friend of Graham’s (obviously) – and we believe his support for Kagan and Sotomayor was every bit as deplorable as it was politically unwise. In fact sources close to Graham’s campaign tell FITS his backing of liberal judges gives them more heartburn than any other issue.
But in this particular instance, we believe Cash is wrong …
Government shouldn’t be in the prayer business any more than it should be in the marriage business. Irrespective of the sect or denomination, taxpayers should not subsidize chaplains or other religious leaders, nor should their government engage in any sort of faith-based activities (beyond upholding the right of all citizens to worship – or not worship – as they please).
“Religious freedom” means government protects all faiths while embracing none …
Given our limited view of government, we are always on the lookout for things to take off of government’s agenda. That includes any opening prayer.