Not enough my fellow Americans that anti-Semitism is on the rise again, prevalent the world over and even in our own country, especially so many of our embarrassing colleges and universities.
Now comes another wave of ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTRY, repulsive to our Constitution and disgusting to our right-thinking citizens.
President Trump recently nominated one Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame Law Professor, to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Barrett was a graduate of Georgetown Law School, a well-respected professor indeed at Notre Dame and a serious student and scholar of the law. Coney’s legal and professional qualifications were beyond reproach. But personally, Barrett found herself unfortunately to be Roman Catholic in her faith and for some reason that fact brought out the prejudice, the anti-Catholicism of members of the Senate panel on the judiciary, namely senators Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin and Al Franken. Feinstein, in her infinite wisdom, stated the following about Amy Coney Barrett:
“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 fought for, for years in this country.”
Feinstein, whatever her religion is if any, has determined, again in her infinite wisdom, that DOGMA lives loudly within Barrett. Of course, this learned senator from San Francisco representing the once great State of California (how did she ever get elected?) that dogma exists but nowhere defined it, nowhere. The long and short of the matter is that Barrett is a proud and faithful Roman Catholic, the doctrine of which church structures her conscience and provides her with a moral foundation which many do not have. That confession of faith in the mind of Feinstein, perhaps anti-faith generally or perhaps atheist herself, disqualifies Barrett from serving on the Seventh Court of Appeals or perhaps anywhere in political office. Nice lady that Feinstein is! I wonder what kind of dogma lives loudly inside the mind and heart of that senator, don’t you?
And more, Senator Dick Durbin probed Barrett further. This good senator from Illinois dared to ask Barrett is she considered herself an Orthodox Catholic with the strong implication that such personal faith would be impermissible and disqualifying. No matter to Durbin, and Feinstein of course, that the Constitution expressly forbids any kind of religious testing as a qualification for public office. None whatsoever. I wonder if the learned Feinstein and Durbin even knew that prohibition existed in the Constitution. If they knew, it is obvious they could care less.
And then there was Senator Al Franken from Minnesota, you know the raucous old comedian who ran for Senate some six years ago and to the surprise and shock of millions, was actually elected. Who knows what this learned comic had to say about Barrett and about Catholicism. What a sad and unconstitutional day for America. Anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Evangelical. Gee whiz, only one is missing:
ISLAM
I would ask Messer’s Feinstein, Durbin and Franken whether or not the faith of a Muslim would disqualify that person for public office. What do you think these learned, objective and fair-minded senators would say?
And yet another example of senatorial witch-hunting. Bernie Sanders, you remember him as the socialist-many think Marxist or even Communist Senator from the once great State of Vermont said about Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee to be Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, knowing that Mr. Vought was an Evangelical Christian:
“(you are) really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”
Can you believe that? And this is the very same socialistic senator whose wife the FBI began investigating (Jane Sanders) for falsifying documents to obtain a $10 million loan to expand a now-defunct liberal arts college in a town where her husband once served as mayor while she was the school’s President.
So, it seems that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics are fair game, persona non grata when it comes to political office no matter the Constitution. What’s next, I suppose is Judaism. If you are Jewish, and the dogma of Orthodox Judaism lives loudly within you, you are obviously not qualified for public office now, are you? And of course if you are Muslim, possessed of the faith of Islam in any sincere or dogmatic way, you are also unqualified for public office, are you not? These senators Feinstein, Franken and Durbin, and of course Sanders, so dead darn wrong for America and those on the Senate Judiciary Panel among perhaps many others set themselves up as judges of others, especially when it comes to faith and especially when perhaps they had none themselves. This is a sad day in America for PEOPLE OF FAITH. If you are one, you better stand up and fight the fight of faith or day by day, you and all others like you will be ostracized, and excluded from political service and the political arena. DON’T LET THAT HAPPEN! Our Constitution guarantees there will be no religious litmus test. We the people can never be forced to choose between our faith and public service, NEVER!
Let us say for moment that this line of questioning might be explained away as merely the ill-considered efforts of a few hyper-partisan Democratic senators (an understatement to be sure) in an attempt to score cheap political points at Barrett’s expense, rogue senators acting individually. If so, then why does not the Democratic Party, the DNC, and all other right-thinking Democratic Senators decry these actions and the political behavior of these senators and put them in their place? Typically Democrat. Get it out there, see what happens, and deal with the fallout if there is any only when it comes. Attack, retreat and spin. It is to me really tragic to see this once great party becoming every day so much more UNCONSTITUTIONAL in thinking and practice. They care not for political diversity, but only protecting what one called:
“The sovereign progressive political waters.”
Perhaps it is an attempt on the part of these senators and many more to intimidate people of faith, perhaps especially Roman Catholics, and make them reluctant to accept nominations to appointed positions of leadership in government no matter that they are otherwise eminently qualified to do so. It is these self-appointed judges who themselves should be judged and not the prospective judge Amy Coney Barrett!
And more evidence that this Democratic Party may well be becoming constitutionally rotten at the core. DNC Chairman Tom Perez has publicly stated, in a BOLD PUBLIC ASSERTION that, are you ready for this:
PRO-LIFE CANDIDATES MAY NO LONGER FIND A HOME IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
Shocking, is it not? If you are prolife, which of course means that you against abortion at least in some form, you would no longer be welcomed in the Democratic Party! Sad to hear, is it not? Further examples of the unbelievably divided, angrily divided America in which we live.
But no matter to this Senate Judiciary Panel and these three rogue senators Feinstein, Durbin and Franken that Barrett long ago recognized the potential conflict with regard to the principles of faith versus the Constitution. Barrett had, long ago, written an article with one John Garvey, then a law professor at Notre Dame and now President of Catholic University in which they argued that in some rare but important cases, judges may face an unresolvable clash between the requirements of civil law and the demands of conscience. They cited the administering of the death penalty as one. In such a legal situation, what then should a Catholic judge do for this judge, no matter the faith, can not allow that faith to override the oath the judge took to administer the civil law as it is, faithfully and to the letter of the law. Amy Coney Barrett pledged to uphold the law, faithfully in every way, and to execute and administer that law as-it-is no matter her faith. In fact, said Barrett, if my faith and my conscience prevent me from so administering the civil law, I will RECUSE myself from the case and will make no decision on the legal matter at hand. That of course was a fair, honest and Constitutional approach to the matter and this improper senatorial questioning. Barrett was saying in essence what former Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. said when asked, he a strong Roman Catholic believer, whether his faith might prevent him from abiding by his judicial oath. Said Brennan:
“There isn’t any obligation of our faith superior to that. Only the Constitution and the laws of the United States would control my conduct as a jurist.”
Barrett said the same thing.
And then there was another well-known Catholic justice, the now deceased Antonin Scalia. Scalia was a Catholic in whom “the dogma lived loudly.” But for him, the Constitution and the oath taken by judges was supreme. When there was conflict between matters of faith and the civil law, Scalia said the following regarding judicial choices:
“The choice for the judge who believes that the death penalty (or any other law to be immoral) is RESIGNATION!”
In short, says Scalia, if you take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Rule of Law as a judge or justice, you can not ever or for any reason violate that oath no matter your conscience. Follow the law, do what it says or RESIGN! And, so said Barrett.
But, perhaps the most famous political Roman Catholic politician was the very first Catholic President of the United States in 1960, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. In Kennedy’s famous address to the Houston Ministers during his 1960 campaign, President Kennedy declared that if the time should ever come “when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office. And I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.”
And, Professor Barrett would do the very same. In fact, a recusal in a certain kind of lawsuit where morality is deeply involved is in essence a de facto resignation at least from that case and that of course would be the right thing to do. Never would or should a right-thinking, RIGHT-THINKING PERSON OF FAITH ever attempt to impose that faith on others, especially from the judicial bench. Barrett in fact stated repeatedly during her Senate hearing that it is never appropriate to do so and that her religious affiliation and beliefs:
“Would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.”
Christopher Eisgruber, President of Princeton University and a legal scholar himself, wrote that the questions addressed to Ms. Barrett were inconsistent with the Constitution’s prohibition on religious tests for public office. Ask Feinstein, Durbin, Franken and Sanders if they care.
And then, at last rose up John Jenkins, Fr., President of the University of Notre Dame, himself no conservative to deal with this matter. Father Jenkins wrote to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee who led the assault on Ms. Barrett as follows:
“I write, said President Jenkins, to express my confidence in Barrett’s competence and character and deep concern at your line of questioning.”
Barrett, he reminded Feinstein was a serious legal scholar, graduate of Notre Dame law school, a clerk for Judge Laurence SilBerman of the U.S. Court of Appeals and a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, she of impeccable legal credentials.
Jenkins went onto say:
“Your concern as you expressed it is that dogma lives loudly in Professor Barrett and that is a concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.”
“I AM ONE,” said Jenkins. “In whose heart dogma lives loudly as it has for centuries in the lives of many Americans, many of whom have given their lives in service to this great nation.”
Then, President Jenkins of Notre Dame University:
“It is CHILLING to hear from a United States Senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom DOGMA LIVES LOUDLY which (Jenkins reminded Feinstein), is a condition we call FAITH.”
I can only wonder if Feinstein understood.
What a sad day for people of faith, and especially Roman Catholics, a sad day indeed for America.
But, Barrett will in fact be confirmed. The Democrats, in their infinite wisdom and passion to ensure the confirmation of Obama’s nominees, changed the Senate rules in 2013 so that a simple majority, not 60 senators, is all that is needed to confirm a judicial nominee. That worked for the Democrats then, but will now come back to bite them. Virtually every Trump nominee for the court will be confirmed by a simple majority vote of the senators. The Republicans say thank you to the Democrats for setting the precedent.
Kimberly Strassel, excellent writer for the Wall Street Journal, refers to Senator Dick Durbin and she states the following about this man and his unconstitutional frame of mind. Said Strassel:
“Durbin couldn’t help admitting what he had been trying to accomplish-
A CULTURE OF FEAR.”
And that, my fellow Americans, is the ultimate objective of progressives, radicals, socialists, Marxists and atheists. To create a political culture of fear so as to prevent people of faith, and especially in whom:
THE DOGMA LIVES LOUDLY
And especially Roman Catholics to intimidate them from applying for or participating in the public and political affairs of this great country. But right-thinking people of faith will have none of it, NONE! And I for one loudly applaud them for stepping up and serving our country, don’t you? In fact, we need more people of faith, with character and morality, in office rather than less. If indeed the Washington swamp is to be drained, then politics should be bathed in fresh water, with fresh thinking, with fresh and unafraid people of faith, as so many of our founding fathers were. They can restore our once great Constitution, and Rule of Law, and the respect and dignity for the legal and political foundations of this great country. Let us hope that Professor Barrett is not intimidated and will not resign. Let us hope that this person of faith in whom the Catholic dogma lives loudly will persevere, and of course be approved by a right-thinking majority of Republican Senators and add significantly to the jurisprudence and constitutionality of America. She is right for the job.
Were I on that Senate Judiciary Committee, I would absolutely vote for her confirmation. Would you?