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: 117
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#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.]

GreyLmist posted on 2018-07-07 5:26:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 1.
#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" ... ]

GreyLmist posted on 2018-07-10 06:22:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um