Next post
President Donald Trump is poised to nominate a judge to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States. This is the perfect time to look at the anti-Catholic bigotry in the United States Senate. Knowledge is power.
It is considered likely that Amy Coney Barrett will be the judge who will face scrutiny in the Senate hearings. We already have an example of the anti-Catholic bigotry against her by Senator Dianne Feinstein. You probably remember this one. In 2017, Coney Barrett was having her hearing before taking her place on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, when Feinstein said:
“I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the Dogma lives loudly within you.
“And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have thought for, for years in this country.”
Can you imagine if that had been said to a woman of Jewish or Muslim faith? Wouldn’t ever happen. We cannot have that kind of religious bigotry.
Next in the spotlight is Joe Biden’s VP nominee, Senator Kamala Harris and the mouth-breathing, non-sentient nematode, Senator Maizie Hirono. Brian C. Buescher was nominate by President Trump to be the District Judge for Nebraska. Since he as a teenager, Buescher had been a member of the violent terrorist group (sarc) the Knights of Columbus. Here is how the AP reported the questions of Hirono and Harris:
“The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions,” said Ms. Hirono, Hawaii Democrat, citing the group’s opposition to same-sex marriage. “If confirmed, do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?”
Ms. Harris asked Mr. Buescher, who became a member 25 years ago as a teenager, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?”
Mr. Buescher, who said he would abide by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges regarding his affiliations, said his participation has centered on “charitable and community events in local Catholic parishes.”
“I do not recall if I was aware whether the Knights of Columbus had taken a position on the abortion issue when I joined at the age of eighteen,” he replied.
Can you imagine a Pro-Life Catholic? Buescher should be more flexible in his Catholicism like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Catholicism is life a buffet menu. You can choose from the wide selection and ignore the broccoli and Brussel sprouts. I may be a backsliding Southern Baptist, but I know that is not right.
Our third example of Senatorial anti-Catholic sentiment is once again from Senator Kamala Harris. This time her attack on the faith of Judge, now Justice Brett Kavanaugh. We start with Senator Ted Cruz asking Kavanaugh about a case regarding the Priest for Life and their desire not to provide abortifacients. In their case, Priest for Life used the phrase “abortion inducing drugs”. Here is the video:
Cue the outrage. How dare Kavanaugh use the phrase “abortion inducing drugs”.
Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control. He was nominated for the purpose of taking away a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions. Make no mistake – this is about punishing women. pic.twitter.com/zkBjXzIvQI
— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) September 7, 2018
The next day, Kamala doubled down:
A day later, Harris replied to her tweet with another video that provided the full context for Kavanaugh’s statements. But she then doubled down on her main point: “There’s no question that he uncritically used the term ‘abortion-inducing drugs,’ which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control.”
In a plain reading of the exchange, though, it seems that Kavanaugh wasn’t offering a personal view when he used the term “abortion-inducing drugs” — he was instead using the language of the plaintiffs of the case in question.
Religious tests were anathema to the Founding Fathers. There is no mention of “separation of Church and State in The Constitution. That mention was in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, who were concerned about religious tests:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Since Amy Coney Barrett is a Catholic, we can expect the anti-Catholic bigotry to be on display, if and when she is the nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States. Be ready. Sharpen your rhetorical swords.
Featured Image: Thomas Hawk/Flickr.com/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0)
[…] Promoted In Basic, also, AF Stops Mandatory “White Supremacy” Training Victory Girls: Anti-Catholic Bigots In The Senate Volokh Conspiracy: Calabresi Urges Supreme Court Term Limits, also, A Resignation In Time To Save […]
John C. says: Why do so many scream about the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” while ignoring the immediately following “…[O]r prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”? The First Amendment does not guarantee freedom FROM religion, though many seem to think so these days.
— The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [Article VI, paragraph 3] —
It strikes me as an impeachment-grade offense for a senator to attack a judicial nominee over his religious beliefs. Of course, given Democrat control of the House, that’s not very likely at the moment, but perhaps after January 3…
Politically Ambidextrous says: When your religion informs you what you need to do or not do, it’s probably OK. When your religion informs you what I need to do or not do, it’s probably not.
Quentin-Q Quill says: Most Catholics use birth control despite the church saying that birth control is wrong. Does this make all the Catholics who use birth control “buffet menu” Catholics or do you give your approval for Catholics to use birth control? I’m sure many Catholics who use birth control are nervously waiting for your pronouncement about this. I’m also curious about something else. Are there other people that you’d put in the category of being a “mouth breathing non-sentinent nematode?” Is this how you learned to speak about people in Sunday school in the Southern Baptist Church or is this part of the buffet available to Southern Baptists? Thoughts and prayers for you as you ponder your theological stance on birth control for Catholics and just who is and isn’t a mouth breathing non-sentinent nematode.
GWB says: Your mewling is pathetic, QQQ.
And yes, by definition, Catholics who selectively follow the dictates of Mother Rome are “cafeteria Catholics”. Regardless of how small a deviation, if they do it willingly and with knowledge, then they are not in the good graces of their Church.
Those who do it publicly and using their positions of power to endorse and encourage it are in much greater danger of hell. You know, like politicians and judges.
And, yes, there are cafeteria Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. And cafeteria Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. *eyeroll*
CaptDMO says: “President Donald Trump is poised to nominate a judge to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States.”
No.
President Donald Trump is poised to nominate a judge to replace the empty chair on the Supreme Court of the United States.
GWB says: I would say he’s nominating to fill the empty seat, which was previously held by Ginsburg. He is replacing her, since she is now gone from the Court.
(That one doesn’t rise to the level of “filling Ginsburg’s seat.”)
GWB says: he was instead using the language of the plaintiffs of the case in question
Which has gotten lots of people in trouble lately. Same with using foreign words in their foreign context, but they happen to sound like a “bad word” in English, so off everyone goes to the axeman!
Sorry, but I refuse to live in the post-modern 1984.
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions
Boy, I wish more people would erroneously believe THAT was part of the Constitution! It would solve most of our most pressing progressive demands instantly.
building a wall of separation between Church and State
Yet, the Church of Progressive is now moving to take over the gov’t, demanding obeisance to its belief system and its high priests, and attempting to enforce its doctrines (as it has done for a few decades now) with the power of the state.
Yeah, no, that’s what we left our homes to avoid. Thanks, bye.
I would love to see McConnell slap down anyone questioning Barrett along the lines of her private beliefs. Immediately cast them out of the hearing, call for a censure vote from the Senate, and prevent them from voting on the nominee, on the basis of Article VI, paragraph 3, as violating their oath to the Constitution.
9 Comments