A reprehensible attack on a Catholic judicial nominee

22

CatholicVote.org President Brian Burch responded to the anti-Catholic bigotry displayed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, during today’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on the judicial nomination of Amy Barrett for federal court:

It is said one of the biggest mistakes a politician can make is to accidentally tell people what you really believe. Senator Feinstein and Durbin made clear once again the deep seated bias and bigotry within the Democratic Party when it comes to people of faith — especially against Catholics in public life.

“We witnessed the animus against Catholics in the past and again last year with the revelation of hate-filled emails directed at the Catholic Church by top level staffers inside the Clinton campaign. Such bigotry has no place in our politics and reeks of an unconstitutional religious test for qualification to participate in the judiciary. What these Senators did today was truly reprehensible. We urge Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin to apologize for their shameful attack on Professor Barrett, a superb and eminently qualified nominee.”

Watch Senator Feinstein’s statement for yourself:

The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of CatholicVote.org

Share.

About Author

CatholicVote.org is a lay-led movement of committed Catholics who are passionate about living out the truths proclaimed by Christ and His Church in the modern world. We are joined in this mission by many individuals of other faith traditions (and no faith tradition) because the common good we seek is universal to all men and women of goodwill. As patriotic Americans, we believe that life, faith, and freedom are precious rights, and that the family is the foundational unit of society.

22 Comments

  1. Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz on

    Where was Senator Grassley, the chairman? Shouldn’t he have called Feinstein, Franken, et al, to order?

  2. If she were Protestant, Islamic, Buddhist, or Atheist, no problem. To be honest I would have preferred her response was more like, “What about the Catholic faith would you say is not truth, and why would it not be wise to use these truths to aid in how I make decisions”?

  3. If Ms. Feinstein were to walk the campus of Notre Dame U for a few hours and talk to random students on their way to classes, she would be looking into the faces of clear-eyed, friendly, loving men and women. I did that for the first time in my life two weeks ago merely for the sake of seeing the campus. I saw all the things the school is noted for — the church, “touchdown Jesus,” the quadrangles, the stadium, and more — but my deepest impression was of the faces of the students I talked with. They were the radical opposite of the students who make the news for their bullying “resistance.” Ms. Einstein supports the bullying resistance, so of course she would be “concerned” by a woman of faith. That’s the word Ms Feinstein should have used if she were being unbiased — faith, not dogma. But she chose “dogma” because she wants to bully Ms Barrett. Would she have made a similar statement to a Muslim woman with similar credentials? The evidence of her (and the Congress’s) recent past performance makes me deeply doubt that. The only thing missing from the photo of Ms. Feinstein is a black outfit with a mask on her face and a club in her hand. She is not a legislator. She is a bully set against goodness. Mel Livatino

    • I guess QUEEN (D) Hillary R. Clinton’s DOGMA is ACCEPTED– (D) Sen. Feinstein.

      Presidential Candidate (D) Hillary R. Clinton in 2016 on ABC Network Program THE VIEW Statement:
      Script provided :

      (D) Hillary R. Clinton’s DOGMA: ” Full Term healthy newborn have NO CIVIL RIGHTS” – especially after the horrific Gosnell case as late term abortionist, Kermit Gosnell believed himself to be INNOCENT CHAMPIONING WOMEN’S CHOICE ABORTIONS THROUGH TO BIRTH OF A CHILD.
      That is your DOGMA Ms. Dianne Feinstein. — and of course, President Barack H. Obama statement: President TRUMP is targeting young people regarding DACA. But the DOGMA?? from Sen. Barack H. OBAMA?? “I don’t want my daughter’s punished by a baby” RE: Abortion. So who is targeting very, very young people, President Barack H. Obama??

  4. Ryan Schroeder on

    I agree with your sentiment but must ask where your voice has been on issues like this in the past.
    The current President – the one you supported in the election – blatantly claimed that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t possibly issue a fair ruling in regards to a case involving the President. And yet, you were silent. I can’t find a single mention on your website, your Facebook feed or your Twitter feed about this subject.

    • Very true, Ryan. And where is CatholicVote on speaking out against Trump’s announcement that he was ending DACA? This is a softball for anybody claiming to be Catholic, and was tackled head-on by the USCCB and even church leaders who are undoubtedly conservative. My suggestion to Catholics looking for a consistent voice on Catholicism and politics would be to follow Robert Christian and the folks at Millennial and America Magazine run by the Jesuits. Of course, National Catholic Reporter is a great place to find solid commentary, particularly Michael Sean Winters’ daily column. CV lost its credibility long ago and doesn’t even pretend to be anything other than an arm of the GOP.

      • Larry Mehlbauer on

        SEANM, what you miss, I suspect deliberately, is that DACA establishment was illegal to start with, having been an unconstitutional diktat by Obama, bypassing Congress and violating the separation of powers. Apparently you have no real respect for the rule of law. All Trump did was temporarily stop creating new “dreamers” until Congress has a chance to act. Moral imperatives regarding political policies are complex, and your comments seem to imply that they must be liberal to be morally acceptable. If this is the case, then you are dead wrong.

    • A sitting senator has attempted here to apply a religious test to a judicial candidate during a confirmation hearing.

      A candidate for office makes a statement during the campaign claiming possible basis on part of a sitting judge.

      You believe these are equivalents, or were you simply taking an opportunity to simply denounce the president? You can do that all day-denounce the president-but IMO these are not equivalents.

    • Trump was correct. The judge was biased. He was affiliated with La Raza. He should have recused himself. Thinking people researched his affiliations before making that decision. I am sure Trumo did, too.
      There are several Catholics on the Supreme Court. Never has that effected there votes.

  5. EUGENE PATRICK DEVANY on

    I sympathize with Brian Burch but I understand why the Democrats questioned federal judicial nominee, Amy Barrett, about her religion and particularly about “dogma” and the phrase “orthodox Catholic”. As an attorney and catholic I have never been able to comfortably separate the two. The modern Democratic Party has followed the intellectual contortions of the late Gov. Mario Cuomo who argued that a sincere Catholic could tolerate and actually support legal abortion as a matter of personal conscience and public policy.

    It is a sick society that forces a judge (or nominee) to say that religion has no role in legal reasoning. Case precedent can often be distinguished and religion, including one’s general sense of justice, can play a big role in the effort required to consider all options. I don’t expect a U.S. judge to apply church law or dogma to litigation any more than foreign law of any country.

    The Democratic Party has made abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action and a few other issues into a litmus test for political endorsements. The term “orthodox Catholic” might be used by some writers to exclude Catholic Democrats from good Catholics in political discourse. Sen. Feinstein should be concerned about those who believe good Catholics would never vote for a Democrat.

  6. Ryan Schroeder on

    Ram – honestly. The current President said, point blank, that a current judge cannot be impartial because of some intrinsic quality of his that the judge cannot change. There, are you happy? How anyone can defend that, while supporting this article, is beyond the definitions of logic. Enough of the semantics. Call a spade a spade, or continue to fight for your partisan causes.

    • Candidate Trump did indeed state that he thought the Judge in question could not be impartial in the matter in question as he was of Mexican descent.

      I’m not defending the statement, but you said it was a race-based comment. That’s not “semantics”, Ryan.

    • Brumble Buffin on

      Trump said a judge can be biased. How naive are you to think that’s not true? SC Justice O’Connor said, “A wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” Obama’s Sotomayor, a Latina, disagrees. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Outcry from the Left? Of course not. And please spare us the nonsense that this comment was “satire” or “one-off.”
      About DACA – – since when is it a bad idea to give Congress 6 months to make something LEGAL?
      P.S. : CV is one of the best news sources we have today. To bash it is to degrade yourself.

    • I assume you will no longer be reading the national catholic reporter due to its failure to similarly condemn Feinstein’s bigotry? Or are you yourself what you accuse others of being? A partisan hack that commands others to a higher standard of behavior than the one you yourself follow.

  7. Ms. Feinstein,
    One of the biggest things that our soldiers have fought for is religious liberty.
    You have betrayed your oath and should resign.

  8. Too many comments that beg the question. Do these two Senators have the right to attack this woman jurist because they disagree with her personal belief system? If she were a Jew? A Muslim? A Lutheran?
    Any other denomination? If your answer is yes, then does race or sexual preference come next? This has nothing to do with Trump or Obama. It is a Constitutional issue.

Leave A Reply