Judicial nominee faces Senate scrutiny over Knights of Columbus membership

[skookerasbil]

Another step towards doing the Cowboys and Lefties thing!

 

[martybegan]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

Funny coming from a progressive, who's entire political platform often requires activist judges who ignore the Constitution when they see fit.

 

[Moonglow]

Hmmm, so all that retarded Republican blustering about Oblama being a Muslim was just for shitz and giggles?

No one opposed B. Hussein O just because, according to Sharia Law, he was a muslim.

The opposition to O was due to the fact he was extremist, hardcore socialist.

Hardcore socialist, what socialist policies did Oblama create and implement as president..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have no problem getting vetted for a judicial position with the DemonRATS if you are a Satan worshiper a Communist, or an active atheist!

The ugly specter of religious bigotry reared its disgusting head during Senate confirmation of the nomination of Brian Buescher for a federal judgeship. The Constitution’s Article VI, Clause 3 clearly specifies that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” but that must be news to Senators Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris.


Ed Condon of the Catholic News Agency reports:


A judicial nominee faced questions from Senators this month about whether membership in the Knights of Columbus might impede his ability to judge federal cases fairly. The Knights of Columbus say that no candidate for public office should have to defend his membership in a Catholic service organization.


Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) raised concerns about membership in the Knights of Columbus while Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the candidacy of Brian C. Buescher, an Omaha-based lawyer nominated by President Trump to sit on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.


Senators also asked whether belonging to the Catholic charitable organization could prevent judges from hearing cases “fairly and impartially.”


In written questions sent to Buescher by committee members Dec. 5, Sen. Hirono stated that “the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”


Hirono then asked Buescher if he would quit the group if he was confirmed “to avoid any appearance of bias.”


“The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher responded.


“If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Read more at americanthinker.com .

We're a house divided

 

[Polishprince]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

I'm surprised that you are saying this, particularly after the case of the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Before she was appointed, she was not just a card carrying member, but also actually a LEADER in the far left ACLU.

Could she ever be expected to treat those who would want to assure the right to keep and bear arms fairly, or those concerned about the right to life, when she was an admitted leader of a radical left, gun-grabbing, anti-life outfit?

 

[Polishprince]

Hmmm, so all that retarded Republican blustering about Oblama being a Muslim was just for shitz and giggles?

No one opposed B. Hussein O just because, according to Sharia Law, he was a muslim.

The opposition to O was due to the fact he was extremist, hardcore socialist.

Hardcore socialist, what socialist policies did Oblama create and implement as president..

Obamacare, aka the ACA, was hardcore socialist as well as fascist.

 

[Lysistrata]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

Funny coming from a progressive, who's entire political platform often requires activist judges who ignore the Constitution when they see fit.

Where has this occurred? What is an "activist judge"?

 

[Moonglow]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

Funny coming from a progressive, who's entire political platform often requires activist judges who ignore the Constitution when they see fit.

Yeah like the violation of the fourth amendment allowed under Reagan and subsequent presidents up to Oblama when he ended it and Trump who allows it to continue even though the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional.

 

[Moonglow]

Hmmm, so all that retarded Republican blustering about Oblama being a Muslim was just for shitz and giggles?

No one opposed B. Hussein O just because, according to Sharia Law, he was a muslim.

The opposition to O was due to the fact he was extremist, hardcore socialist.

Hardcore socialist, what socialist policies did Oblama create and implement as president..

Obamacare, aka the ACA, was hardcore socialist as well as fascist.

Nope it wasn't socialist in the least bit the private companies ran the program which means it isn't socialist...Fascism is not the same thing as socialism. But do continue to throw out pejoratives you don't understand.Is that the only item you claim that a socialist president has done? Where is the hardcore socialism?

 

[martybegan]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

Funny coming from a progressive, who's entire political platform often requires activist judges who ignore the Constitution when they see fit.

Where has this occurred? What is an "activist judge"?

Plessey and Roe come to mind.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

Funny coming from a progressive, who's entire political platform often requires activist judges who ignore the Constitution when they see fit.

Yeah like the violation of the fourth amendment allowed under Reagan and subsequent presidents up to Oblama when he ended it and Trump who allows it to continue even though the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional.

Can you be more specific?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hmmm, so all that retarded Republican blustering about Oblama being a Muslim was just for shitz and giggles?

No one opposed B. Hussein O just because, according to Sharia Law, he was a muslim.

The opposition to O was due to the fact he was extremist, hardcore socialist.

Hardcore socialist, what socialist policies did Oblama create and implement as president..

Obamacare, aka the ACA, was hardcore socialist as well as fascist.

Nope it wasn't socialist in the least bit the private companies ran the program which means it isn't socialist...Fascism is not the same thing as socialism. But do continue to throw out pejoratives you don't understand.Is that the only item you claim that a socialist president has done? Where is the hardcore socialism?

Yes it was. The moment the government mandated it. Which was unconstitutional

 

[Polishprince]

Where has this occurred? What is an "activist judge"?

An activist judge is a judge who takes a legislative role for the court.

Example given. About 15 years ago, when the SCOTUS came down with the Lawrence decision legalizing Sodomy, some broad was discussing it with me after I indicated my disagreement. She explained that the court was right, because 2 guys should be able to f each other in the a if they want to.

I explained back, that wasn't the point. The point I made was that they was nothing unconstitutional about outlawing butt sex between men- its up to the states as the writers of the Constitution wanted to leave the legalization of this perversion up to each state.

 

[Lysistrata]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

Funny coming from a progressive, who's entire political platform often requires activist judges who ignore the Constitution when they see fit.

Where has this occurred? What is an "activist judge"?

Plessey and Roe come to mind.

How was Roe "activist"?

 

[Pilot1]

I'm surprised that you are saying this, particularly after the case of the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Before she was appointed, she was not just a card carrying member, but also actually a LEADER in the far left ACLU.

Could she ever be expected to treat those who would want to assure the right to keep and bear arms fairly, or those concerned about the right to life, when she was an admitted leader of a radical left, gun-grabbing, anti-life outfit?

Ginsberg HATES the U.S. Constitution, yet swore to uphold it. What a horrible hypocrite, and COMMUNIST. Now, they make movies about her! Well, the Media, and Hollywood is Communist, so that is not a surprise.

 

[Polishprince]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

Funny coming from a progressive, who's entire political platform often requires activist judges who ignore the Constitution when they see fit.

Where has this occurred? What is an "activist judge"?

Plessey and Roe come to mind.

How was Roe "activist"?

Roe legalized Abortion on Demand across the fruited plain, bypassing the legislative process entirely.

And that's , BTW, why it still isn't accepted as legitimate by many millions of Americans.

The Civil Rights Act, on the other hand, was opposed by large segments of the Far Left- guys like Gore Sr., Byrd and Fulbright who wanted to maintain Jim Crow. However, it was passed by Congress, and even those who disagreed with it understood it was legitimate and accepted it as a valid law.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

Funny coming from a progressive, who's entire political platform often requires activist judges who ignore the Constitution when they see fit.

Where has this occurred? What is an "activist judge"?

Plessey and Roe come to mind.

How was Roe "activist"?

It's based on nothing but the desire of the judges who were in favor of it, just like Plessey was.

Abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, nor is any other medical procedure.

It's up to the State legislatures to figure it out.

 

[Lysistrata]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

I'm surprised that you are saying this, particularly after the case of the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Before she was appointed, she was not just a card carrying member, but also actually a LEADER in the far left ACLU.

Could she ever be expected to treat those who would want to assure the right to keep and bear arms fairly, or those concerned about the right to life, when she was an admitted leader of a radical left, gun-grabbing, anti-life outfit?

The same ACLU that defended the neo-Nazi's right to march through Skokie, Illinois, and defended Sean Hannity? That ACLU?

ACLU just might defend the rights of a woman to sovereignty over her own body and to choose her own religion against religious zealots who are not of her faith.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is that we have to ascertain that a judicial nominee will be fair and impartial if appointed to the bench.

We have had judges and other officials who have attempted to exercise the powers of their offices to advance their personal religious agendas instead of abiding by the rule of law. How do we guarantee that a person given power will not do this? This is an assurance that all Americans deserve to have.

I'm surprised that you are saying this, particularly after the case of the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Before she was appointed, she was not just a card carrying member, but also actually a LEADER in the far left ACLU.

Could she ever be expected to treat those who would want to assure the right to keep and bear arms fairly, or those concerned about the right to life, when she was an admitted leader of a radical left, gun-grabbing, anti-life outfit?

The same ACLU that defended the neo-Nazi's right to march through Skokie, Illinois, and defended Sean Hannity? That ACLU?

ACLU just might defend the rights of a woman to sovereignty over her own body and to choose her own religion against religious zealots who are not of her faith.

That ACLU doesn't exist anymore, it's currently going through a shift away from abject adherence to civil liberties and is now only defending those they agree with.

 

[Polishprince]

That ACLU doesn't exist anymore, it's currently going through a shift away from abject adherence to civil liberties and is now only defending those they agree with.

Exactly, the ACLU stands opposed to the God Given right to keep and bear arms as affirmed in the 2nd Amendment. They are against the Free Exercise of religion, and have been instrumental at keeping Almighty God out of the government schools.