Dems on SCOTUS: Catholics Need Not Apply

Catholics are the sole remaining religious group that it is politically correct to slander and denigrate and the consideration of nominees for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retiring Anthony Kennedy has brought out the liberal anti-Catholic bigots en masse.  Their target is Justice Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Just as John F. Kennedy was said by some to be a stalking horse for the Vatican who would clear each major decision with the Pope, Barrett a practicing Catholic who actually gets it right, has been charged with embracing Catholic dogma so tightly that there is no room left for the Constitution and those “emanations from a penumbra” that sanctified Roe V. Wade. Catholic League President Bill Donahue addressed the issue on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox:

Senate Democrats grilled Barrett over how her Catholic faith would affect her views on court precedents concerning abortion cases during her confirmation process after Trump nominated her as a circuit judge in 2017.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), in particular, showed what Catholic League President Bill Donahue called anti-religion “animus” during their questioning of her religious beliefs…

"Let’s remember... the seminal statement by Sen. Feinstein -- she said the dogma screams loudly in you," Donahue told Ingraham. "That’s coming awfully close to establishing a religious test."

Feinstein received intense backlash after she told Barrett during her confirmation hearing, "Dogma and law are two different things. And, I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you."

Let us hope so. The Bible, the same one liberals are waving lately, says Christians, and Catholics, are the light of the world and are to place their light, not under a bushel, but on a nightstand where the light can lead all to the ultimate truth. It is unlikely Feinstein would tell a Muslim nominee, “The Sharia dogma lives loudly within you.”

Note the use of the word “dogma” in a pejorative sense, as if the Catholic Church was a cult like the Druids chanting around a fire waiting for the human sacrifice to arrive. In fact, Barrett has in fact been slandered as a member of a cult which is in fact a legitimate Catholic faith group:

Ingraham agreed that she saw "a very strong anti-Catholic bias running through all of this" outrage against Barrett's Catholicism and her membership in the conservative Christian People of Praise enclave.

Donahue replied, "I think I know what a cult is. This certainly is not a cult. It’s a charismatic renewal group, which is a family-oriented Catholic organization. And in fact, the pope -- who’s hardly considered a man of the Right -- welcomed them just last year at the Vatican."

Those who have retrieved dusty Bibles from grandma’s attic are waving them at conservatives, saying that enforcing the nation’s immigration laws and separating children from parents is not the Christian way to act even as they fight to keep children being separated from their families before birth. Ripping children from their mother’s arms is bad but ripping them from their mother’s womb, which, one would think should be the safest of safe spaces liberals claim to support, is good.

Barrett probably actually believes the Scripture passage that said when Mary, carrying Jesus, approached her cousin Elizabeth, the baby, repeat, the baby, destined to be John the Baptist, leapt for joy in his mother’s womb. And for this, liberals such as Feinstein and Durbin would keep Barrett off the Supreme Court, despite lack of any evidence that she ever has or ever will decide a case based on the Catholic Catechism rather than the U.S. Constitution.  

As the pro-life blog LifeSiteNews notes:

The blog Progressive Secular Humanist blasted her in a post this week, writing:

Barrett, who once clerked for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, is a dangerous Catholic extremist, and a vigorous opponent of a woman’s right to an abortion. She has written extensively on the need to dismantle Roe v. Wade.

People For The American Way reports on Barrett’s deep hostility to reproductive rights, noting:

  • Barrett wrote in a law review article that abortion is “always immoral.”
  • She served as a member of the “University Faculty for Life” organization at the University of Notre Dame.
  • She signed a letter entitled “Unacceptable” opposing the Obama administration’s proposal to accommodate religious employers while carrying out the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
  • She has criticized Roe v. Wade, saying that the decision “essentially permitted abortion on demand,” and has implied that the landmark case was incorrectly decided.”

In 2017, abortion activists also lobbied heavily against Barrett’s appointment to the 7th Circuit court. Planned Parenthood’s lobbying was so deceptive that several liberal law professors blasted the abortion group for attacking her with false statements.

Yes, Barrett believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and is a decision no more rooted in moral law than the Dred Scott decision. Whether defined as 3/5ths of a human being or not a human being at all, all are fully human in the eyes of the Creator who endowed all with the inalienable right to life. The Supreme Court occasionally gets things wrong and in both these cases they did.

Roe v. Wade is the Dred Scott decision of our time and should be reversed.  Ultrasound technology developed since Roe explodes the myth that the unborn are of no more significance than an unwanted mole or an ingrown toenail by showing graphic images of tiny knees and elbows, curled feet, waving hands, and beating hearts. That is why pro-abortionists oppose it.

It has been said that if the Supreme Court in 1973 had seen ultrasound pictures of the unborn, Roe v. Wade would have been decided quite differently. Indeed, in the majority opinion, the late Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” But he also wrote that if the unborn life was proven to be a person, “the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment.”

A few years ago, a television commercial for General Electric's new ultrasound system showed a pregnant woman and her husband marveling at an amazingly clear picture of their unborn baby's features. The commercial featured Roberta Flack's song ``The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face.'' The announcer says: ``When you see your baby for the first time on the new GE 4D ultrasound system it really is a miracle.''

Barrett could very well be the vote that overturns Roe and puts it on the pile of bad SCOTUS decisions like Dred Scott. But she won’t do it because Catholic “dogma” of the Catholic Church told her to or because she prays the Rosary. It will happen because Roe v. Wade was a bad decision based on things in the imagination of liberal judges but not in the U.S. Constitution.

It will happen because it has been demonstrated that the unborn are as much human beings as the slaves of the Dred Scott era. As Alveda King points out, her uncle Dr. Martin Luther King was clearly committed to the civil rights of the unborn and viewed the killing of the unborn as immoral and observed that one could not be for the civil rights of African-Americans while supporting the abortion of their children:

My birthday is January 22, and each year, this day is marred by the fact that it is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the anniversary of death for millions of babies. I and my deceased children are victims of abortion, and subsequently the Roe v. Wade decision has adversely affected the lives of my entire family. I pray often for deliverance from the pain caused by my decision to abort my baby. I suffered the threat of cervical and breast cancer, and experienced the pain of empty arms after the baby was gone. And truly, for me, and countless abortive mothers, nothing on earth can fully restore what has been lost, only Jesus can.

My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., once said, “No one is going to kill a child of mine.” Tragically, two of his grandchildren had already been aborted when he saved the life of his next great-grandson with this statement. His son, King once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.

The pro-life movement is in fact the civil rights movement of our time and one day we shall overcome, both the slavery of the unborn and the anti-Catholic bigotry that allows it to continue.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

Catholics are the sole remaining religious group that it is politically correct to slander and denigrate and the consideration of nominees for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retiring Anthony Kennedy has brought out the liberal anti-Catholic bigots en masse.  Their target is Justice Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Just as John F. Kennedy was said by some to be a stalking horse for the Vatican who would clear each major decision with the Pope, Barrett a practicing Catholic who actually gets it right, has been charged with embracing Catholic dogma so tightly that there is no room left for the Constitution and those “emanations from a penumbra” that sanctified Roe V. Wade. Catholic League President Bill Donahue addressed the issue on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox:

Senate Democrats grilled Barrett over how her Catholic faith would affect her views on court precedents concerning abortion cases during her confirmation process after Trump nominated her as a circuit judge in 2017.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), in particular, showed what Catholic League President Bill Donahue called anti-religion “animus” during their questioning of her religious beliefs…

"Let’s remember... the seminal statement by Sen. Feinstein -- she said the dogma screams loudly in you," Donahue told Ingraham. "That’s coming awfully close to establishing a religious test."

Feinstein received intense backlash after she told Barrett during her confirmation hearing, "Dogma and law are two different things. And, I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you."

Let us hope so. The Bible, the same one liberals are waving lately, says Christians, and Catholics, are the light of the world and are to place their light, not under a bushel, but on a nightstand where the light can lead all to the ultimate truth. It is unlikely Feinstein would tell a Muslim nominee, “The Sharia dogma lives loudly within you.”

Note the use of the word “dogma” in a pejorative sense, as if the Catholic Church was a cult like the Druids chanting around a fire waiting for the human sacrifice to arrive. In fact, Barrett has in fact been slandered as a member of a cult which is in fact a legitimate Catholic faith group:

Ingraham agreed that she saw "a very strong anti-Catholic bias running through all of this" outrage against Barrett's Catholicism and her membership in the conservative Christian People of Praise enclave.

Donahue replied, "I think I know what a cult is. This certainly is not a cult. It’s a charismatic renewal group, which is a family-oriented Catholic organization. And in fact, the pope -- who’s hardly considered a man of the Right -- welcomed them just last year at the Vatican."

Those who have retrieved dusty Bibles from grandma’s attic are waving them at conservatives, saying that enforcing the nation’s immigration laws and separating children from parents is not the Christian way to act even as they fight to keep children being separated from their families before birth. Ripping children from their mother’s arms is bad but ripping them from their mother’s womb, which, one would think should be the safest of safe spaces liberals claim to support, is good.

Barrett probably actually believes the Scripture passage that said when Mary, carrying Jesus, approached her cousin Elizabeth, the baby, repeat, the baby, destined to be John the Baptist, leapt for joy in his mother’s womb. And for this, liberals such as Feinstein and Durbin would keep Barrett off the Supreme Court, despite lack of any evidence that she ever has or ever will decide a case based on the Catholic Catechism rather than the U.S. Constitution.  

As the pro-life blog LifeSiteNews notes:

The blog Progressive Secular Humanist blasted her in a post this week, writing:

Barrett, who once clerked for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, is a dangerous Catholic extremist, and a vigorous opponent of a woman’s right to an abortion. She has written extensively on the need to dismantle Roe v. Wade.

People For The American Way reports on Barrett’s deep hostility to reproductive rights, noting:

  • Barrett wrote in a law review article that abortion is “always immoral.”
  • She served as a member of the “University Faculty for Life” organization at the University of Notre Dame.
  • She signed a letter entitled “Unacceptable” opposing the Obama administration’s proposal to accommodate religious employers while carrying out the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
  • She has criticized Roe v. Wade, saying that the decision “essentially permitted abortion on demand,” and has implied that the landmark case was incorrectly decided.”

In 2017, abortion activists also lobbied heavily against Barrett’s appointment to the 7th Circuit court. Planned Parenthood’s lobbying was so deceptive that several liberal law professors blasted the abortion group for attacking her with false statements.

Yes, Barrett believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and is a decision no more rooted in moral law than the Dred Scott decision. Whether defined as 3/5ths of a human being or not a human being at all, all are fully human in the eyes of the Creator who endowed all with the inalienable right to life. The Supreme Court occasionally gets things wrong and in both these cases they did.

Roe v. Wade is the Dred Scott decision of our time and should be reversed.  Ultrasound technology developed since Roe explodes the myth that the unborn are of no more significance than an unwanted mole or an ingrown toenail by showing graphic images of tiny knees and elbows, curled feet, waving hands, and beating hearts. That is why pro-abortionists oppose it.

It has been said that if the Supreme Court in 1973 had seen ultrasound pictures of the unborn, Roe v. Wade would have been decided quite differently. Indeed, in the majority opinion, the late Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” But he also wrote that if the unborn life was proven to be a person, “the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment.”

A few years ago, a television commercial for General Electric's new ultrasound system showed a pregnant woman and her husband marveling at an amazingly clear picture of their unborn baby's features. The commercial featured Roberta Flack's song ``The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face.'' The announcer says: ``When you see your baby for the first time on the new GE 4D ultrasound system it really is a miracle.''

Barrett could very well be the vote that overturns Roe and puts it on the pile of bad SCOTUS decisions like Dred Scott. But she won’t do it because Catholic “dogma” of the Catholic Church told her to or because she prays the Rosary. It will happen because Roe v. Wade was a bad decision based on things in the imagination of liberal judges but not in the U.S. Constitution.

It will happen because it has been demonstrated that the unborn are as much human beings as the slaves of the Dred Scott era. As Alveda King points out, her uncle Dr. Martin Luther King was clearly committed to the civil rights of the unborn and viewed the killing of the unborn as immoral and observed that one could not be for the civil rights of African-Americans while supporting the abortion of their children:

My birthday is January 22, and each year, this day is marred by the fact that it is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the anniversary of death for millions of babies. I and my deceased children are victims of abortion, and subsequently the Roe v. Wade decision has adversely affected the lives of my entire family. I pray often for deliverance from the pain caused by my decision to abort my baby. I suffered the threat of cervical and breast cancer, and experienced the pain of empty arms after the baby was gone. And truly, for me, and countless abortive mothers, nothing on earth can fully restore what has been lost, only Jesus can.

My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., once said, “No one is going to kill a child of mine.” Tragically, two of his grandchildren had already been aborted when he saved the life of his next great-grandson with this statement. His son, King once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.

The pro-life movement is in fact the civil rights movement of our time and one day we shall overcome, both the slavery of the unborn and the anti-Catholic bigotry that allows it to continue.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.