Judicial nominee faces Senate scrutiny over Knights of Columbus membership

[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

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

GO DOWN? .... Depends on whether or not
You love America or hate it like Obama did.

Go down?

Are you referring to scribble on a cave wall?

Jo...

 

[BookShaka]

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.

No, there’s not. Christians (I’m NOT talking about cult Christians), don’t beat and oppress women. There is no such thing as “Honor Killings” in Christian culture. In Christianity, punishment comes from God, not from man.

 

[Silhouette]

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

It's a judge like the one gay judge (who was due to retire, cared not about consequences over overreach and wanted to marry his boyfriend) in California (Kamala Harris territory) who took it upon himself to act as King and declare that just some sexual kinks had special rights and therefore, all the millions who voted for Prop 8 in his State were "overruled". This snowballed later into Obergefell where another gay-activist judge, Justice Ginsburg, did a public interview where she said all 50 states were ready for gay marriage....weeks before the actual, you know, Hearing-thingy..

THAT is what an "activist judge" is...

Has Kamala Harris called for an investigation into the CA judge for manifest lack of impartiality? Has she called for Ginsburg to be impeached? No? Why the fuck not? Does Ms. Harris belong to a cult or something where her cult loyalty causes her to be completely blind to her own hypocrisy? You can't have it both ways dear Kamala..

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

No, there’s not. Christians (I’m NOT talking about cult Christians), don’t beat and oppress women. There is no such thing as “Honor Killings” in Christian culture. In Christianity, punishment comes from God, not from man.

But we have dumb sluts like graham, jeffress, abbot, devos, huber posing as Christians and trying to dump their cheap crap on the rest of us. This filth does the same damned thing, call it what you will.

 

[BookShaka]

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.

No, there’s not. Christians (I’m NOT talking about cult Christians), don’t beat and oppress women. There is no such thing as “Honor Killings” in Christian culture. In Christianity, punishment comes from God, not from man.

But we have dumb sluts like graham, jeffress, abbot, devos, huber posing as Christians and trying to dump their cheap crap on the rest of us. This filth does the same damned thing, call it what you will.

“Dumb sluts”, huh? I already knew you were a REgressive, but thanks for the reminder, I guess.

 

[Penelope]

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?

Are they questioning Catholicism or just the fact he belongs to a all male exclusive org?

 

[Penelope]

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

It's a judge like the one gay judge (who was due to retire, cared not about consequences over overreach and wanted to marry his boyfriend) in California (Kamala Harris territory) who took it upon himself to act as King and declare that just some sexual kinks had special rights and therefore, all the millions who voted for Prop 8 in his State were "overruled". This snowballed later into Obergefell where another gay-activist judge, Justice Ginsburg, did a public interview where she said all 50 states were ready for gay marriage....weeks before the actual, you know, Hearing-thingy..

THAT is what an "activist judge" is...

Has Kamala Harris called for an investigation into the CA judge for manifest lack of impartiality? Has she called for Ginsburg to be impeached? No? Why the fuck not? Does Ms. Harris belong to a cult or something where her cult loyalty causes her to be completely blind to her own hypocrisy? You can't have it both ways dear Kamala..

She is not questioning his religion, is she now??

 

[martybegan]

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?

Are they questioning Catholicism or just the fact he belongs to a all male exclusive org?

The knight's have a women's auxiliary, and it's only membership that is restricted to men, women aren't banned from the properties or anything.

 

[Silhouette]

Are they questioning Catholicism or just the fact he belongs to a all male exclusive org?

What Kamala Harris and pals are up to is trying to deny someone based on a hunch that they might be not impartial. Meanwhile she and her pals give a complete pass to impeaching a sitting Justice (Ginsburg) who has already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that her cult ideology (LGBT) swayed her opinion before the facts in the Hearing were even heard. She declared in a press interview weeks before Obergefell that like a God, she had already determined that gay marriage was a thing that America (as in all 50 states regardless of how they voted internally) was ready for.

 

[Lysistrata]

Why can't we question a man's membership in an all-male organization that is known to take political stands on issues that pertain to women and LGBT folks when this person has been nominated for a life-time office? If seated as a judge, women and LGBTs would live under his rule.

 

[Silhouette]

Why can't we question a man's membership in an all-male organization that is known to take political stands on issues that pertain to women and LGBT folks when this person has been nominated for a life-time office? If seated as a judge, women and LGBTs would live under his rule.

We can. But be aware the opposite also applies. See my last post for details.

You can't have selective judicial-impartiality policing.

 

[hadit]

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.

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. You're complaining about something that doesn't exist.

 

[Asclepias]

There is no such thing, and never can be, as a marriage between two men or between two women. That's not what marriage is, that's not what marriage has ever been, and that's not what marriage will ever be.

I disagree but my point has nothing to do with what you just said. My point is it doesnt [sic] matter what you accept or dont [sic] accept. It has no effect on your life unless you are forced to marry another man. No matter what the law says its not going to change what you personally accept. We know this because you dont [sic] accept gay people getting married because you are a homophobe. No law can change that about you.

You're free to believe that the Earth is flat, and that it is only my “opinion” if I assert otherwise. But treating plain and obvious truth as “opinion” doesn't make it so, and doesn't make the falsehood to which you cling any less false.

It does affect my life, when society demands that I treat falsehood as truth, that I treat madness as sanity, that I treat perversion as decency. We have real, tangible examples to see, of good people having their livelihoods disrupted or destroyed, for standing ip for truth and refusing to give in to lies.

You call me a “homophobe” as if this is some vile insult. All that “homophobe” means is that I recognize a sick, insane, immoral sexual perversion for what it truly is, and refuse to treat it approvingly. There's nothing shameful about this. To not be a homophobe is what would be shameful, as that would mean that I embrace and accept evil as equal to good.

The problem with your ignorance is that your reality is based on your opinion. You can think something. You can get others to agree with you. However, you cant prove your opinion shapes the reality of all people.

No it doesnt affect your life. All society does is tell you that gay people getting married is protected by law. Unless you are gay it doesnt affect you. All you have to do is mind your business and your life never changes.

I called you a homophobe because thats what you are. Your afraid of homosexuals most likely due to you having homosexual tendencies you wish to suppress. As a matter of fact it proves my point. You feel gay people getting married affects you because you are a homosexual. If you were hetero like me you would not feel any threat or change to your life by gay people getting married.

 

[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? You are the one arguing that it is permissible for a state to force religious law on its citizens.

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. You're complaining about something that doesn't exist.

Bullshit. We see it all over the country. Texas, the Dakotas, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and many other places. All Christian sharia. All pushed by "Christian" bibble-thumpers. Sharia is here in our midst. Pigpence comes to mind, and he is playing at being vice president of the entire country. They have even spread sharia law in our executive-branch departments. This dirt is all over the place.

 

[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? You are the one arguing that it is permissible for a state to force religious law on its citizens.

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. You're complaining about something that doesn't exist.

Bullshit. We see it all over the country. Texas, the Dakotas, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and many other places. All Christian sharia. All pushed by "Christian" bibble-thumpers. Sharia is here in our midst. Pigpence comes to mind, and he is playing at being vice president of the entire country. They have even spread sharia law in our executive-branch departments. This dirt is all over the place.

Being opposed to abortion on demand does not equate Sharia. having political opinions due to one's religion does not negate one's right to them.

Sharia involves even familial relations under the law, it is a separate legal system.

 

[Votto]

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 .

Why not?

Appointing judges is akin to appointing stooges for your partisanship, that is, Left wing appointments.

Those appointed by the GOP can swing either way.

 

[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? You are the one arguing that it is permissible for a state to force religious law on its citizens.

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. You're complaining about something that doesn't exist.

Bullshit. We see it all over the country. Texas, the Dakotas, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and many other places. All Christian sharia. All pushed by "Christian" bibble-thumpers. Sharia is here in our midst. Pigpence comes to mind, and he is playing at being vice president of the entire country. They have even spread sharia law in our executive-branch departments. This dirt is all over the place.

Being opposed to abortion on demand does not equate Sharia. having political opinions due to one's religion does not negate one's right to them.

Sharia involves even familial relations under the law, it is a separate legal system.

Opposition to abortion IS sharia when it is imposed on other citizens through the abuse of the legislative process. Your "on demand" thing remains ridiculous as all treatment is "on demand" absent unconsciousness.

The people who wish to terminate a pregnancy are no less entitled to their views and freedom of religion, as well as to a right to sovereignty over their own bodies. You are trying to invade the rights to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of one's own body. Very anti-American. No one is being forced to terminate a pregnancy. Have you not even thought about people who adhere to religions other than yours, or who do not wish to practice a religion?

I notice that a lot of those seeking to impose sharia law on Americans are people who are male and can't get pregnant in the first place. Are we all supposed to bow down to their sharia views? I select my own religion, thank you very much.

 

[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? You are the one arguing that it is permissible for a state to force religious law on its citizens.

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. You're complaining about something that doesn't exist.

Bullshit. We see it all over the country. Texas, the Dakotas, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and many other places. All Christian sharia. All pushed by "Christian" bibble-thumpers. Sharia is here in our midst. Pigpence comes to mind, and he is playing at being vice president of the entire country. They have even spread sharia law in our executive-branch departments. This dirt is all over the place.

Being opposed to abortion on demand does not equate Sharia. having political opinions due to one's religion does not negate one's right to them.

Sharia involves even familial relations under the law, it is a separate legal system.

Opposition to abortion IS sharia when it is imposed on other citizens through the abuse of the legislative process. Your "on demand" thing remains ridiculous as all treatment is "on demand" absent unconsciousness.

The people who wish to terminate a pregnancy are no less entitled to their views and freedom of religion, as well as to a right to sovereignty over their own bodies. You are trying to invade the rights to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of one's own body. Very anti-American. No one is being forced to terminate a pregnancy. Have you not even thought about people who adhere to religions other than yours, or who do not wish to practice a religion?

I notice that a lot of those seeking to impose sharia law on Americans are people who are male and can't get pregnant in the first place. Are we all supposed to bow down to their sharia views? I select my own religion, thank you very much.

Yeah, about that....

A Secular Case Against Abortion - Pro-Life Humanists

I am OK with New York allowing abortion on demand, just as I am OK with Alabama banning it.

Sorry if you only can argue against bible thumpers, your bitching and moaning in this case is not applicable.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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 .

Bernie Sanders did this almost two years ago.

Bernie Sanders's Religious Test for Russell Vought - The Atlantic

Democrats are dishonest scum

 

[otto105]

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 .

Is this guy just another drumpf nominated person who has received an unqualified rating from the ABA?