By Peter Schweitzer
PoHo contributor

We can now throw college coach Rick Pitino on the scrap heap of public figures undone by a sex scandal.

Pitino, a self-described devout Roman Catholic, has become embroiled in a sex scandal involving payola for an abortion. Of course, that’s not how Pitino’s lawyer describes it but that what’s going to stick. Six years ago, he had a tryst with Karen Sypher in a restaurant of all places. When confronted with the news that she was going to bear the fruit of his loins, Pitino offered her money “for health insurance.”

She says Pitino offered to pay for an abortion. Sypher describes the relationship as non-consensual and is facing extortion charges. Now, Pitino is fighting to save his job in Louisville.

None of this would be newsworthy if the coach hadn’t worn religion on his sleeve for so long. He portrayed himself as the family man, the devout Catholic. Now, he’s caught confronting the dirty truth about relations with a woman to whom he wasn’t married. Time to go to confession? Perhaps. Better yet, shut the hell up about your religious convictions and coach basketball! That’s what you’re paid to do. If the good people of Louisville wanted a sermon they can go to their local church. You created this mess by publicly professing your beliefs and your values. Now you have to live with the stark contradiction of reality.

While many US bishops would wish it wasn’t so, President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict are eager to dialogue and engage each other on the world stage.

Prior to Obama’s Notre Dame speech, 83 US bishops had distanced themselves from the Protestant president for his stand on abortion. Yet, the supreme leader of their church, Pope Benedict, is willing to rearrange his schedule to meet with the US President and embrace him as a partner on many social issues. Benedict’s just published encyclical Caritas in Veritate, points out many more similarities to the young President’s agenda than dissimilarites. What does this say about the American bishops?

Perhaps it points to the pope’s broader vision for humanity. Perhaps it underscores Benedict’s realistic political view. He’d rather work with Obama on issues with which he agrees than fight him on issues which he’s sure to lose.

Most importantly for Catholics in the United States, it points to a growing chasm and disconnect between the US bishops and their faithful in the US. After all, Catholics are more likely to follow the lead of the successor of St. Peter than their local bishop.

At the very least, the pope recognizes that he and Obama have a similar vision on such issues as the economy, poverty, hunger, peace, social justice, the death penalty, and health care.

The pope is taking the traditional via media in dealing with the new US President. That’s good for US Catholics and disconcerting for US bishops who’ve sided with the Republican agenda the last few years.

Obama’s decision to make a pit stop in Rome before going to Africa was a smart move. He’s got an ally in the Vatican and he knows it.

By Peter Schweitzer
PoHo contributor

He was supposedly hiking — getting away from it all, clearing his head.

When 2012 Presidential wannabe South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford went AWOL late last week, most observers pointed to another case of Sanford being Sanford. As time went by and no one including his own wife could account for his whereabouts, the rumors began to fly. Yet, no one imagined the truth would be as bizarre as what the governor himself revealed on Wednesday afternoon: he’d been unfaithful to his wife; leaving all to wonder about the little side trip to Argentina (first reported as a hiking trip in the Appalachians).

What a week for white, male, conservative, Christian politicians. First, Sen. John Ensign caught with the wife of a staffer, then former Hillsborough County Commissioner Brian Blair charged with putting a real life smackdown on his two children, then the coup de grace-Sanford and his hike up a skirt.

Some will cry foul. I’m picking on the conservative, Christian Republicans again. Nope, not this time. The facts speak for themselves. I’m not moralizing here. I think I have a pretty decent understanding of human nature and its foibles. I’m not critical of their weakness and their failures.

Rather, I find fault with their prior history of moralizing and judging others, holding themselves above the rest of us plebes because they’re men of values, family values no less. My issue with these men lies not in their professions of faith.

There’s a rule in journalism that holds true in life as well: Show me, don’t tell me. If you’re a man (or woman) of faith show me that faith by your actions toward your wife, toward your fellow human being, and toward those whom you serve. I’d prefer to discover your faith in your actions, not in your pronouncements. Let me discover your work with the poor, disenfrancished, and those who can’t offer you a political donation or a position of power. Let me discover your service to the community. Don’t talk about it, just do it. I don’t want to hear you talk about it.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday to deny convicts a constitutional right to DNA testing. It wasn’t a surprise. While acknowledging that DNA can provide powerful new evidence, the majority distinguished between those presumed innocent at the onset of a trial and those already convicted during a trial. In District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.”

That may be true, but what if the verdict arrived at by the jury was wrong?  Roberts argument is a non sequitur. The purpose of DNA is to provide more certain evidence as to the party’s guilt or innocence. If DNA was not utilized in the court of first instance, how certain is the jury’s verdict of guilty in the first place?

Essentially, the Supreme Court ruling leaves the decision of whether to utilize DNA testing for convicts up to individual states. The real question up for debate yesterday was whether the Constitution’s Due Process clause requires states to offer the DNA testing.

The case heard before the Supreme Court yesterday involved a convict, William Osborne, who’d been found guilty of kidnap and rape in Alaska. The Innocence Project, an advocacy group representing Osborne’s interests before the Court, has noted that subsequent DNA testing has exonerated 240 previously guilty people since 1980.

In dissenting from the Roberts-led majority, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of placing the finding of conviction over and above the question of justice. Stevens noted that Osborne was willing to pay for the DNA testing and that the burden of DNA testing to establish guilt or innocence was minimal.

Stevens dissenting point is well taken. I would prefer allowing a guilty person to go free rather than deprive an innocent man of his liberty.

If the Fourteenth Amendment is a due process clause that applies to states how come Alaska can treat its residents differently than say, Florida? I’m no legal scholar but I thought due process meant equal protection under the law.

By Peter Schweitzer
PoHo contributor

You can’t mix oil and water, and you sure can’t mix politics and religion. It’s not because one is more noble than the other. It’s because their goals are at odds with each other.

Religion is based on a belief in what is true about the world and the hereafter. It necessarily presupposes an adherence to credal formulas that express a certain world view. Religion has to do with truth, albeit one’s perception of it. It has to do with how things ought to be. Religion concerns itself with how a follower believes, acts, and interacts with others. Those who practice a particular religion adhere to a certain belief system (orthodoxy) and a corresponding way of behavior (orthopraxy).

Politics is just the opposite. It’s based on the art of compromise.  It’s the practice of what can be, not necessarily what should be. This is by no means a criticism. Politics concerns itself with the possible and the practical, not the ideal.

In a pluralistic society with a diversity of religious beliefs, politics necessarily and correctly absents itself from the religious realm. Politics has to determine what is just and fair for everyone regardless of their particular religious belief system.

When politicians pander to religious groups by calling our nation a “Christian nation,” they’re doing a huge disservice to the body politic and its citizens. It’s simply not true that we’re a Christian nation. Such statements make governing a nightmare. An elected official must represent all the people regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof.

Thus far, President Barack Obama has been able to nimbly deal with this “third rail.”  Unlike his predecessor, his world view is broad enough to encompass everyone, not a particular religious constituency.

Anyway, doesn’t belief in a divinity presuppose that he/she is big enough to deal with us all?

By Peter Schweitzer
PoHo contributor

President Obama must’ve been in the mood for breaking new ground in Presidential appointments this week. First, he chooses a Latina, Sonia Sotomayor, for the Supreme Court, and then taps another Hispanic as his ambassador to the Vatican.

Miguel Diaz is a 45-year-old theologian who had served as a consultant to Obama’s presidential campaign. It’s an interesting appointment in that these appointments are usually given to politicians or those who contributed significantly to a president campaign. I can’t recall another such appointment given to a theologian. It’s a smart political appointment that demonstrates his desire to reach out to Catholics and Hispanics. It’s shrewd in that it’s an apolitical appointment.  Diaz is a theologian, an academic who has not played any significant role in politics.

As a Catholic theologian, Diaz publicly supported Kathleen Sebelius, another Catholic whom Obama tapped as Health and Human Services Secretary.

Let’s hope for his sake Barack Obama’s vetting team asked Sonia Sotomayor if she has paid her taxes. Let’s hope they asked her if she’s ever hired, employed, otherwise used undocumented folks for laundry, housekeeping, garbage pickup, whatever. Also, she damn well have been kidding about the impact a judge’s ethnicity and sex have on the decision-making process. She better downplay her comment about a Latina woman (isn’t that redundant) making better decisions than a white male considering the folks asking her questions are predominantly white males, and old white males at that.

Now, for the hard part…

By all objective criteria, Sonia Sotomayor is qualified for the nation’s highest court from her academic, legal, and judicial experience. That shouldn’t be an issue. If it is, we have a whole other set of problems. She’s a summa cum laude Princeton grad and a Yale law grad. She’s been on the federal bench since 1992, appointed by a Republican no less.

In her decisions, she’s tipped her judicial cap to the religious constituency by advancing First Amendment claims based on religion. She’s even sided with business in some of her rulings. Most importantly, she hasn’t entered the abortion fray.

In terms of how she’ll play politically, she’s an Hispanic woman who’s humble, hard working, and knows her roots. In the press conference, she didn’t come off as a man-eating feminista bent on punishing the imperialist dogs. From her remarks, you’d glean nothing of her accomplishments, which are considerable.

On the other hand, she’s made some statements that could give Dems pause and Repubs fodder. The two statements to which I’ve referred will need some polish. More importantly, she’ll have to nuance her response to the certain questions concerning public policy making. She’s on record for stating that the court is where public policy is created. That’s a problem for Obama. If she brushes off the questions, she’ll look like she’s ducking.  If she gives too nuanced a response, she’ll look like she’s lying. This is a problem that Republicans are sure to exploit, as well they should.  It was a dumb thing to say. She knew it too because she said so. “And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that.”

What’s troubling about that statement is that she’s smart enough to know better.  Does that go to judicial temperament?

Obama’s betting on her personal story, her educational and legal achievements, and her experience to get her confirmed. Those opposed to her nomination should nimbly zero in on her comments. Don’t touch her sex, her ethnicity, or her experience. Question her about her intemperate comments.

Another issue that has little to do with Sotomayor as a person or a jurist is her faith. She’s a Catholic.  If confirmed, that would make a sixth justice a Catholic.  Imagine that, six out of nine Supreme Court justices would be Catholic.  Forty-six years ago, the nation took issue with electing a Catholic president!  Where’s the diversity and “experience” in having six out of nine justices Catholic?

In the end, she’ll be confirmed. Not because she’s qualified or a woman. She’s Sonia from the block and the opposition can’t stop her.

Actually, I could’ve titled this post “Are Republicans afraid of homosexuals?” But I’m going to pick on the conservatives for now. 

Why are homosexuals necessarily anti-family? Who says homosexuals aren’t religious folks who read their Christian bible, Hebrew bible or their Koran? Why do we have these black-and-white cultural dividing lines?

I bring this up because of the brouhaha over so-called “gay marriage” legislation.  Conservatives show their bona fides by fighting gay marriage legislation. It doesn’t make much sense that an anti-gay marriage agenda should be a core conservative principle.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that a same-sex couple wants society to recognize their union. In a pluralistic society that champions freedom of religion and lifestyle, conservatives should actually fight against state interference in the lives of its citizens.

The solution Obama proposed on the campaign trail last year makes some sense. Let religious leaders deal with marriage and the state deal with civil unions. This division of labor should satisfy the parties involved while maintaining and recognizing the proper separation of church and state.

Recognition of same-sex unions is not a statement about morality. Rather, it’s an acknowledgement of a diverse society. The purpose of laws is to promote the general welfare of all, not the preferences or beliefs of a few. Laws have a moral quality insofar that they must treat people fairly and equally.  Particular expressions of morality or a certain moral code are best left to faith groups.

Perhaps that’s why many, including myself, mark the advent of George W’s decline as the Terri Schiavo debacle.  After he intervened in that morass, he ignored the horror of Hurricane Katrina. As Bush sank into a black hole, conservatives went with him. Perhaps it’s because fear-mongering and creating societal inequality aren’t very popular in a society proud of freedom and equality.

By Peter Schweitzer
PoHo contributor

UPDATE 8:46 a.m.: Barack Obama will announce later this morning his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the Federal Appeals Court as his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, The New York Times reports. If confirmed by the Senate she will be the third woman on the court and the first Hispanic justice.

The MSM will undoubtedly cast Obama’s first Supreme Court choice in terms of liberal vs. conservative. While the consequences of Barack Obama’s decision will have political overtones, the real debate centers around how the document in question (the U.S. Constitution) should be interpreted.

In the one camp, there’s Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

In the other, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and John Paul Stevens are firmly situated.

And Obama could announce the next member of the high court as early as today.

It’s really a debate about textual criticism. Is the Constitution to be treated as a living, breathing document meant to be interpreted in light of the current social circumstances, or is it a historic document to which one must genuflect in adoration without manipulating its original intent?

Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas prefer genuflection. They are strict constructionists who firmly believe the document must be interpreted in the light of the author’s original intent. What did those white, male gentry have in mind when they wrote our nation’s founding legal document? Any derivation from this original intent is considered anathema.

On the other hand, there’s Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens who think the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the country’s prevailing social, economic, cultural, and political circumstances. In their view, the Constitution is a vibrant document that sketches in broad strokes our nation’s underlying philosophical principles. As they see it, the duty of the justice is to apply those principles to the present day circumstances.

It’s an important philosophical and intellectual divide that has more than an ivory tower power over the lives of its nation’s citizens.

There’s plenty of intellectual firepower on both sides — particularly from Roberts, Scalia, Breyer and Ginsburg. It’s clear from President Obama’s statements about his view of the court and the Constitution that he sides with the latter group.

Unfortunately, the Senate confirmation hearings will be nothing more than a boring show of duck and cover. Ever since Robert Bork’s failed confirmation in 1987, the proceedings have devolved into nothing more than a “no comment” from the nominee. Every administration since that time knows that the successful nominee will give only the vaguest answers to questions about judicial philosophy and temperament. Administrations have tended to pick court nominees that have no paper trail. Of course, such vanilla nominees can provide plenty of consternation for the Presidents who chose them. Just ask Bush 41 (David Souter) and Nixon (Harry Blackmun).

By Peter Schweitzer
PoHo contributor

Ed.’s note: Peter Schweitzer is marketing and public relations professional who has worked in politics and the law. This is his first guest blog for The Political Whore.

By all accounts, President Obama’s recent controversial Notre Dame commencement address was a hit. He was cool, eloquent, and not the least bit intimidated by the U.S. bishops who had all but called for his head on a platter the weeks prior to the address.

The bishops on the other hand ranted and raved stopping just short of calling Obama the Anti-Christ. The former Archbishop of St. Louis Raymond Burke railed that Obama was “anti-family” during a national prayer breakfast. He and his fellow prelates weren’t in any mood to pray for their enemy. One bishop even declared “we’re at war!”

Perhaps before declaring war on Obama and his administration they should go read Sun Tzu. The bishop’s “army” is depleted. In a recent Quinnipiac national poll released last month, Obama had a 57 percent approval rating among Catholics. (A subsequent poll showed even stronger support for his appearance at Notre Dame among Catholics.)

Looking back at the Notre Dame weekend, Obama’s composure and the bishops frothing at the mouth meltdown is not surprising. Obama is winning this war in spite of the fact that he probably wouldn’t see the issue in those terms. Right now, the bishops, still embattled by the sex abuse scandal, are no match for Pennsylvania Avenue’s Cool Hand Barack.