Judicial nominee faces Senate scrutiny over Knights of Columbus membership

[sparky]

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

 

[Polishprince]

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

You're portrayal of B.Hussein O is a Sikh get up is the kind of insanity that ls hurting our country. The number of Sikhs who are mistakenly attacked because people think they are islamonazis is growing. We really need to educate the people about the Sikh faith to eliminate hate crimes against them.

 

[justoffal]

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

Nope it was for exposing his lie that he was Christian.

Jo

 

[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"?

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.

Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.

Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?

 

[Penelope]

We also need to wonder why JFK was the only Catholic Potus, talk about the Protestants being prejudice.

What are you talking about? Catholic runners-up to the GOP nomination weren't rejected because of their religion.

The most notable Catholic runner-up, Patrick J. Buchanan, had a huge amount of support from some of the most Protestant areas of the country and got the respect of academician Bob Jones IV, who has numerous theological disputes with Catholcism

Sure they were, are you kidding, Catholics had a worst time trying to get ahead in politics, almost as much as jews.

 

[Penelope]

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

Nope it was for exposing his lie that he was Christian.

Jo

Duh , he was and is.

 

[justoffal]

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

Nope it was for exposing his lie that he was Christian.

Jo

Duh , he was and is.

Or maybe he's both.

Jo

 

[martybegan]

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.

Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.

Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?

Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)

Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

 

[RodISHI]

Dangle, it must be too simple to simply go by the guy's record maybe huh?

 

[Silhouette]

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 .

Ok. Let me get this straight. Kamala Harris of CA had no problem when one gay judge there who wanted to marry his boyfriend, just on the eve of retiring, overturned the Will of millions in that State by singularly overturning Prop 8 with voodoo rationale. This voodoo rationale was ultimately carried forward where gay activist Justice Ginsburg announced to the public weeks before Obergefell that gay marriage in all 50 states was a done deal.

And Harris is saying Catholic judges can’t serve because it might impede their impartiality? Has Harris called for Ginsburg to be impeached yet? No?

This is the cult using Harris to wield another sword of arbitrary fascism. Strict rules for Catholics. Free for all for judicial lgbt cultees.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Where does the idea come from that the rights to keep and bear arms comes from a Supreme Being? How does the right to the "Free Exercise of religion" come into play at all? Where did you get the idea that all Americans adhere to the same religion?

Keeping religion out of public schools is a good idea, since these schools are funded by the public for the betterment of everyone from all walks of life. They are not intended to be recruitment centers. It is for the parents to decide their children's faith and to guide them in it.

Sheesh. I remember having to recite the Our Father in public school when I was a little kid. It was rote to me, except for the fact that the teacher put that funny ending on it, that caused me confusion when I went to church on Sunday. I was an adult before I realized that the kid next to me was Jewish, and it was not a prayer in her faith.

Sunday school. Hebrew school. Whoever instructs kids of other faiths. This is the right and the duty of the parents to see to this.

 

[Penelope]

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

Nope it was for exposing his lie that he was Christian.

Jo

Duh , he was and is.

Or maybe he's both.

Jo

I don't really care what he believes, he will go down as one of the best Potus and Trump the worst.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.

Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?

Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)

Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.

That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.

What about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women? You are the one arguing that it is permissible for a state to force religious law on its citizens.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.

Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?

Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)

Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.

That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.

what about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women?

How is not forcing a baker to perform something against their morals in one specific transaction "establishing a religion"?

How do any requirements for a business licenses trump the 1st amendment?

What Sharia law are they trying to impose?

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.

Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?

Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)

Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.

That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.

what about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women?

How is not forcing a baker to perform something against their morals in one specific transaction "establishing a religion"?

How do any requirements for a business licenses trump the 1st amendment?

What Sharia law are they trying to impose?

Anyone who takes out a business license agrees to abide by the law. He lied, and lied again in his advertising for his business.

The Texas legislature, and those of other states, have attempted time and again to impose Christian sharia on women. Government at every level is supposed to be religiously neutral. People who elect to have an abortion for any reason are free to act on their consciences and beliefs, are they not?

 

[BookShaka]

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 .

So I expect they’ll do the same for a Muslim candidate?

 

[BookShaka]

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.

Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.

Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?

Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)

Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.

That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.

what about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women?

How is not forcing a baker to perform something against their morals in one specific transaction "establishing a religion"?

How do any requirements for a business licenses trump the 1st amendment?

What Sharia law are they trying to impose?

Anyone who takes out a business license agrees to abide by the law. He lied, and lied again in his advertising for his business.

The Texas legislature, and those of other states, have attempted time and again to impose Christian sharia on women. Government at every level is supposed to be religiously neutral. People who elect to have an abortion for any reason are free to act on their consciences and beliefs, are they not?

There is no such thing as Christian sharia.

 

[Lysistrata]

Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.

Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?

Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)

Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.

That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.

what about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women?

How is not forcing a baker to perform something against their morals in one specific transaction "establishing a religion"?

How do any requirements for a business licenses trump the 1st amendment?

What Sharia law are they trying to impose?

Anyone who takes out a business license agrees to abide by the law. He lied, and lied again in his advertising for his business.

The Texas legislature, and those of other states, have attempted time and again to impose Christian sharia on women. Government at every level is supposed to be religiously neutral. People who elect to have an abortion for any reason are free to act on their consciences and beliefs, are they not?

There is no such thing as Christian sharia.

There most definitely is. The "Christians" don't call it that, but it's the same damned thing. No government has the right to shove the beliefs of some down the throats of everyone else.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Every medical procedure is "on demand" unless one is out cold in an ER.

Nobody cares whether something is "accepted as legitimate" by someone else. The "legislative process" has nothing to do with the right of a person to rule on what she wants done with her body and what her choice of beliefs happens to be. Do you want to order someone in the U.S. to submit to the most extreme forms of Islamic Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, for instance? By legislative fiat?

Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)

Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.

That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.

what about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women?

How is not forcing a baker to perform something against their morals in one specific transaction "establishing a religion"?

How do any requirements for a business licenses trump the 1st amendment?

What Sharia law are they trying to impose?

Anyone who takes out a business license agrees to abide by the law. He lied, and lied again in his advertising for his business.

The Texas legislature, and those of other states, have attempted time and again to impose Christian sharia on women. Government at every level is supposed to be religiously neutral. People who elect to have an abortion for any reason are free to act on their consciences and beliefs, are they not?

If the law is unconstitutional, it's moot. People have the right to free exercise of religion.

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia.

The constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, thus the issue is left to the State Legislatures.

 

[martybegan]

Sharia law implemented by a State would be unconstitutional via the 1st amendment (establishment clause) and the 14th (incorporation of said amendment to the States)

Yet funny that you are OK with "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

But you are okay with the establishment of religion so long as it is some fundie crap. You also are against the 14th Amendment when you find out that it protects all Americans.

That stupid bimbo in Colorado put himself under the rule of law when he took out a business license, and (perhaps, I don't know for sure) incorporated.

what about legislators in places like Texas that try to force Christian sharia law on women?

How is not forcing a baker to perform something against their morals in one specific transaction "establishing a religion"?

How do any requirements for a business licenses trump the 1st amendment?

What Sharia law are they trying to impose?

Anyone who takes out a business license agrees to abide by the law. He lied, and lied again in his advertising for his business.

The Texas legislature, and those of other states, have attempted time and again to impose Christian sharia on women. Government at every level is supposed to be religiously neutral. People who elect to have an abortion for any reason are free to act on their consciences and beliefs, are they not?

There is no such thing as Christian sharia.

There most definitely is. The "Christians" don't call it that, but it's the same damned thing. No government has the right to shove the beliefs of some down the throats of everyone else.

"BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT"