4um: 'The Dogma Lives Loudly Within You': Senate Democrats Grill Appointee Over Catholic Faith

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: 'The Dogma Lives Loudly Within You': Senate Democrats Grill Appointee Over Catholic Faith
Source: Christian Post
URL Source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/t ... ee-over-catholic-faith-198469/
Published: Sep 8, 2017
Author: Michael Gryboski
Post Date: 2017-09-13 13:40:34 by farmfriend
Keywords: None
Views: 95
Comments: 4

A few Senate Democrats recently grilled a judicial nominee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals over her Roman Catholic beliefs.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney A few Senate Democrats recently grilled a judicial nominee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals over her Roman Catholic beliefs.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different," 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 fought for years in this country."
Click for Full Text!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: farmfriend (#0) (Edited)
Title: 'The Dogma Lives Loudly Within You': Senate Democrats Grill Appointee Over Catholic Faith
Source: Christian Post
URL Source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/t ... ee-over-catholic-faith- 198469/
Published: Sep 8, 2017
Author: Michael Gryboski [Christian Post Reporter]

Excerpt 1:
A few Senate Democrats recently grilled a judicial nominee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals over her Roman Catholic beliefs.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett held Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., expressed concern over the nominee being too religious.
At issue were comments made by Professor Barrett going as far back as 1998, which some have interpreted as saying that Catholic teaching should take precedence over the law.
"Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that — you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different," 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 fought for years in this country."
Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois also expressed concerns over the religious views of Barrett,

Excerpt 2:

"If you're asking whether I'm a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge," Barrett said.
The comments given by Feinstein and other Senate Democrats have garnered criticism by some, including a column published by the Washington Examiner.
"The bigger question isn't whether this distinguished professor doesn't understand what her judicial oath requires, but rather whether Feinstein understands, as Nebraska's Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican, noted, that it is unlawful to impose a religious test on public officials," argued the opinion piece.
"The real danger to our constitutional system comes not from Amy Barrett's Catholicism, but from Feinstein's animus against it." [Insert: + that of the other two Democrat Senators noted at Excertpt 1 (Hirono and Durbin) who likewise violated the Religious Test Clause of the Constitution due to "concerns over the religious views of Barrett" -- re: Roe v. Wade. In other words, their Abortion criterion is such that they believe the Religious Test Clause of the Constitution needn't apply to them whenever Judiciary nominees are Catholics who've expressed any positive opinion of Pro-Life values.]

Ref. Excerpt 3 for another example of a Leftist Senator violating the Religious Test Clause of the Constitution similarly but with prejudice against Christianity more generally:

During a Senate Budget Committee nomination hearing in June, [Sen. Bernie] Sanders [I-VT, who caucuses with the Democrats,] critically questioned Russell Vought, President Donald Trump's nominee for deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, over his conservative evangelical views.]

-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2018-07-07 5:26:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2. To: All (#1) (Edited)
Title: 'The Dogma Lives Loudly Within You': Senate Democrats Grill Appointee Over Catholic Faith
Source: Christian Post
URL Source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/t ... ee-over-catholic-faith-198469/
Published: Sep 8, 2017
Author: Michael Gryboski [Christian Post Reporter]

Democrats target SCOTUS candidate Amy Coney Barrett - YouTube, 10.75 minutes
Published on Jul 5, 2018 by Fox News
[Conservative guest @ 3:46, "this is really ridiculous because, under our Constitution, there is no religious test for office and that's what they are trying to do here."
Leftist guest @ 5:30, "This woman [Barrett] does not believe in story decisive [?] ... you know what that means? She doesn't believe in established law."

i.e stare decisis: A Latin phrase that literally means “to stand on the decisions.” It expresses the common law doctrine that court decisions should be guided by precedent, which does not have equal weight and bearing doctrinally in cases of Constitutional Law -- perhaps to the point of none whatsoever.; Note: Guided by precedent does not mean customary or newfangled precedents can't be overturned if found to be in error by lower courts or higher courts. It is the Supreme Court's duty to decide, in accordance with the Constitution, if common law and/or precedent is valid or not.

@ 6:45, right to privacy rulings from "penumbras" [i.e "shadows" or "almost a shadow"] formed by emanations in the Bill of Rights guarantees re: Roe v. Wade and prior cases. Am also noting here that Roe v. Wade is not a law at all, much less "established law" -- it's a court-issued contrivance:

Ref. Emanations and Penumbras: One of the most famous/infamous passages in Supreme Court history is: “The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy.”
Now I’ve always wondered where Justice Douglas got this idea for Griswold v. Connecticut [1965]. Then I read Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), an opinion by Justice Sutherland. [Justice] Holmes dissented, ... Note that Holmes is using penumbra in a different way from Douglas. He is arguing against using these to infer a general right.
Ref. 'PRIVACY, PENUMBRA AND EMANATIONS': the facts reveal this "right" to be little more than an intellectually clumsy contrivance of the Supreme Court and an astonishing display of judicial arrogance. ... a hitherto unknown "zone of privacy," [was] transformed into a "right of privacy" by the simple device of the court's substitution of the term "right" for "zone" in its later decisions. ... by 1973, its own legal sleight of hand enabled the court in Roe v. Wade to cite a "line of decisions" that had established a generalized right to privacy and that had, without further explication, become "broad enough" to include a virtually unrestricted right to abortion.

Conservative guest @ 9:20, "no principles of stare decisis say that 'every case, once decided, never gets overturned'.
No, zero Justices in the Supreme Court believe that" [as the definitional meaning]. "This is all a distraction. These are scare tactics" ... ]

-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2018-07-10 6:22:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#3. To: All (#2) (Edited)

Archiving:

Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are leading candidates for Supreme Court seat - latimes.com | June 28, 2018

They emerged from a list of more than two dozen potential nominees put together by the conservative Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.
[Justice Souter's] leanings were moderate to liberal. In 1992, Souter along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor joined to uphold the right to abortion announced two decades earlier in Roe vs. Wade.
Last fall, Kavanaugh was involved in a quick-moving dispute over whether a migrant teenager in Texas could be released from immigration custody to obtain an abortion. A federal judge cleared the way, but Kavanaugh wrote a 2-1 decision siding with Trump administration lawyers and blocking the abortion for up to 10 more days. The full appeals court intervened and overturned his ruling. In dissent, he faulted his more liberal colleagues as wrongly creating a “new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain abortion on demand.”
[Barrett] went [to] law school at Notre Dame and spent a few years in Washington as a law clerk for D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman and Justice Antonin Scalia. She returned in 2002 to teach law at Notre Dame. Barrett was narrowly confirmed by the Senate in November ... In a 2003 scholarly article, she suggested Roe vs. Wade was an “erroneous decision.” ... if Barrett is the nominee, Democrats and liberal activists are certain to focus on her views about abortion

Trump Supreme Court nominee: Amy Coney Barrett, social conservative - indystar.com | July 8, 2018

When the Senate made her an appellate judge last year, Barrett had the support of all Republicans and three Democrats, ... Trump will select his [Supreme Court] nominee from a list of 25 people vetted by conservative groups. ... In addition to Barrett, the other leading candidates from the list are Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and Raymond Kethledge of the Sixth Circuit.
Her gender: If confirmed Barrett would be the first woman appointed by a Republican president to the court since Sandra Day O’Connor.
“The main reason I favor Barrett,” conservative pundit Ramesh Ponnuru recently wrote, "is the obvious one: She’s a woman.”
Senators would have more trouble opposing a female nominee, he argued. And if the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion is overturned, as Ponnuru and other social conservatives hope will happen, “it would be better if it were not done by only male justices.”
Her alma mater: A graduate of Notre Dame Law School, Barrett doesn’t have the Ivy League pedigree that Trump reportedly prefers. But she would bring diversity to a court as the only justice who did not attend Harvard or Yale. [Kavanaugh: Yale - Wikipedia Ref.]
Her clerkship for Scalia: Although she has few published opinions from the bench, her scholarly writings show her approach to the law would follow in the footsteps of Scalia, the champion of the “originalist” philosophy common among conservative justices.
“It is fair to surmise that a Justice Kavanaugh would be a moderate constitutionalist…and that a Justice Barrett would be a strong constitutionalist,” wrote Phillip Jauregui, president of the conservative Judicial Action Group.
In a 2013 Texas Law Review article exploring when the Supreme Court should overturn past decisions, Barrett wrote that she tends “to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.”
She also wrote that the public’s response to controversial cases like Roe v. Wade “reflects public rejection” of the idea that legal precedent “can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.”
“Barrett understands the value of every life, and her view aligns with constitutional principles,” wrote Jauregui, the president of Judicial Action Group . “She also has shown the courage to maintain these principles once on the Supreme Court.” ... “She is smart, honorable, and fair-minded,” the thirty-four former Supreme Court clerks who worked with her in 1998-1999 wrote in a letter supporting her nomination to the Seventh Circuit last year.
On Roe v. Wade: the [Notre Dame] student newspaper The Observer quoted her saying. “The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”
The court could decide to weigh in next term on whether states can block Planned Parenthood from receiving government funds.
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill authored a friend of the court brief signed by 15 other states urging the court to rule that Louisiana can declare Planned Parenthood unqualified to receive Medicaid reimbursements.
Indiana has to decide this summer whether to appeal to the Supreme Court the 7th Circuit’s rejection of a 2016 law signed by former Gov. Mike Pence that would prohibit women from getting an abortion due to a fetus’s race, sex or diagnosis of disability.

January 22, 1973 – The Supreme Court Decided Roe v. Wade | Rhapsody in Books Weblog

On January 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. A pregnant single woman ([alias] Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribed [prohibited] abortions except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life.
In Roe, the Court found: “State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except [exempt] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”
Justice Harry Blackmun (a Nixon nominee), writing for the majority, explained: “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”... Justice Blackmun pointed out that he was relying on “a line of decisions ... going back perhaps as far as ... 1891 [in which] the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution” [Citations omitted].
How could the Court invalidate a statute that did not limit any right enumerated in the Constitution? First the Court made a point of disavowing the doctrine of “substantive due process” expressed in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905). (Substantive due process was a theory under which the Court held some statutes unconstitutional on the basis of the substance of legislation, thereby superimposing its judgment over that of the legislature. This doctrine was widely criticized as “countermajoritarian,” and was rejected in principle in most cases after the 1930’s.) Because Blackmun rejected substantive due process, he had to overturn the Texas statute on other constitutional grounds. He listed a series of cases that found the roots of the right to privacy in the First Amendment, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, “the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment, and the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
What are these [shadowy] “penumbras,” and how far do they extend beyond the rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution? The concept was first articulated by Justice William Douglas (a Roosevelt nominee) in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 1965), [a] precedent that paved the way for Roe.
In Griswold, [the] Court seemed predisposed to find the statute unconstitutional, but struggled for a rationale. None of the rights specifically delineated in the Constitution had been infringed, and, as indicated above, the Court had long ago vitiated the principle of “substantive due process,” under which it invalidated laws solely on their “wisdom, need, and propriety.” Nevertheless, Justice Douglas found that some rights not specifically listed in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights were created by implication.
The Court contended that the express guarantees of the Bill of Rights were not meaningful unless those rights had “penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy.” In other words, it can be rather difficult pursuing “life, liberty and property” without a little privacy,
Although in Griswold, Douglas recognized a “right of privacy,” his ruling was limited to the right to use contraceptives or advise on their use. Furthermore, his language provided very little guidance on the boundaries or extent of the penumbras. However, his rationale could be used to expand the right indefinitely, ... In seeking therefore to find a constitutional reason to declare the Texas abortion restrictions unconstitutional, Roe goes beyond the specific limited language of Griswold, yet applies the rationale of Griswold. Specifically, the Court holds that the penumbras of various specific Constitutional guarantees also include another right, namely the right to abortion in the first trimester.
The appellants in Roe used another line of attack besides the right to privacy implied by the penumbras referenced in Griswold. They also appealed to the rights reserved under the Ninth Amendment, which provides, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Note that this language provides absolutely no guidance whatsoever to what those rights might be. Justice Blackmun may have been reluctant to base the Roe decision on the Ninth Amendment for this reason. Moreover, he wanted to make access to abortion subject to some regulation in later months as the fetus becomes more viable.
The Roe Court perforce had to find that the word “person” in the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the unborn, at least not in the first trimester. (The Fourteenth Amendment protects the guarantees of the first ten amendments from infringement by the States.)
These issues were not resolved definitively. Because Justices Douglas and Blackmun relied on the very indefinite language of penumbras, zones, and emanations, the door was left open for different factions to contest the decision. The questions of what other aspects of life are protected under the right of privacy, what constitutes a “marriage,” and when a fetus becomes a “person” are still unresolved.

Ironically, the Roe v. Wade plaintiff, alias Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey, reportedly never had an abortion. Her views on abortion changed substantially and she put the baby of her pregnancy-in-question-judicially up for adoption instead. She became a Roman Catholic activist in the Pro-Life movement.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
GreyLmist posted on 2018-07-10 11:08:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#4. To: GreyLmist (#3)
'The Dogma Lives Loudly Within You'

That's what they told JFK ;-)
Yes, Ms McCorvey became a fine crusader and renounced/denounced the Roe ruling as a complete fraud into which she got sucked before she knew what hit her. An inspiring miracle amid the unending hell of "the abortion issue".
_____________________________________________________________
USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um
NeoconsNailed posted on 2018-07-10 13:20:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um