Catholic Voters Thrilled With Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh

8

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 9, 2018
Contact: Joshua Mercer, 517-212-0419
Email: mercer@catholicvote.org

Catholic Voters Thrilled With Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh

Unprecedented Campaign Readied to Insure Fair and Impartial Process

MADISON, WI — CatholicVote.org President Brian Burch released the following statement regarding President Trump’s nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court:  

“Trump handily won the Catholic vote in 2016, largely because of his sincerity and pledge to nominate qualified justices with a track record of fairness and fidelity to the Constitution.  President Trump kept his promise to Catholic voters Monday night by nominating another sterling judicial candidate for the Supreme Court.”

“The experience of past judicial confirmation battles suggest attacks on a nominee’s personal religious views are inevitable.  Just today, a prominent publication published an insidious attack on the Catholic faith of special adviser to the President, Leonard Leo.  This coordinated campaign of hate harkens back to a bygone era of open prejudice practiced by southern Democrats and the KKK. Such bigotry cannot, and will not, be tolerated.

“CatholicVote.org is prepared to defend Judge Kavanaugh from any such personal smear campaign by anti-Catholic zealots.  We intend to hold every Senator, of both parties, accountable. Any whiff of anti-Catholic bigotry must be met with universal condemnation by every senator.  This is especially true for those senators seeking re-election in states won by President Trump.”

“CatholicVote.org will be closely monitoring the coming process.  We are now able to communicate with every Catholic in every parish, in each of the battleground states.  Attacks on Catholics have a long and ugly history in the United States. We will not stand by and allow our faith to be used as a punching bag for political gain.”

-30-

 

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.

8 Comments

  1. This will be something for people to witness as they will soon see that attacking someone for adherence to the Catholic faith is the last socially permissible bigotry remaining in this country.

  2. Rob Schroeder on

    I just don’t see a lot of consistency from CatholicVote regarding intrinsic qualities like religion and impartiality.
    In 2015, in regard to presidential candidate (and current HUD Secretary) Ben Carson’s statement that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” the following was published on CatholicVote: “The Clause makes it unconstitutional for the law to require a person to be of a certain religion in order to hold office. It does not, however, prevent voters from taking religion into account in their voting, or leaders from making arguments about who should be elected on the basis of such considerations.”
    https(colon)//www(dot)catholicvote(dot)org/ben-carson-and-the-constitution/
    Why, then, should leaders not make arguments about Kavanaugh’s confirmation on the basis of such considerations? We don’t have to like the arguments, but I guess I’m confused why arguments are acceptable in some cases, but not in others.
    Likewise, President Trump has asserted, on multiple occasions, that the intrinsic background of a judge impacts their impartiality – a Hispanic judge could not possibly be partial to him in a case involving Trump University. Given that Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump, should we not hold him to the standard established by the President himself?
    Finally, upon Sandra Sotomayor’s nomination in 2009, Fidelis, which I believe is the umbrella organization that includes CatholicVote, submitted a letter to the Congressional Record arguing that Sotomayor’s personal feelings and experiences should be considered in the confirmation process.
    https(colon)//www(dot)congress(dot)gov/crec/2009/08/06/CREC-2009-08-06-pt1-PgS8896-2(dot)pdf
    No doubt, many of Kavanaugh’s “personal feelings” are influenced by his religious beliefs, and that’s totally OK. How does one go about evaluating his personal beliefs, though, if they are impacted by religious belief?

    • Rob-

      I don’t think that the standards for nomination change by dint of who nominates them. i.e. Trump can believe as he wishes RE the Hispanic judge, etc. but that belief of his doesn’t change the standard by which a nominee is confirmed, nor does it alter the nominee’s judicial standards he or she holds himself/.herself to.

      The CV editors here can reply if they wish as to the disparate treatment you note here.

      • Rob Schroeder on

        Hi Ram:
        Perhaps I am engaging in semantics, but if the President believes that judges cannot be impartial due to their intrinsic demographics – and I think it’s fair to include religion as an intrinsic demographic- then it would hold that he also believes that Kavanaugh cannot be impartial due to his own intrinsic demographics. Either that or we’re forced to conclude the President is simply racist.
        Given that standard, if the President nominated someone who, by definition, he believes cannot be impartial, I think it is entirely fair to ask why he nominated this person. After all, the President must believe Kavanaugh’s lack of impartiality, based on his demographics, is OK for the Court. Shouldn’t we ask why that is?

        • I guess that I’m saying that my, your or Trump’s feelings about a judge’s impartiality or capacity for same aren’t an actual determinant of that judge’s impartiality or capacity. It’s just what you, I or Trump thinks about it and nothing more.

          The imbroglio you note betwixt Trump and the judge omits the judge’s membership in La Raza, which moves the disagreement beyond merely racial lines to political lines. You seem smart enough not to fall for the facile “racist” card-throw default, so I was surprised by that in your post.

          • From your source:

            TAPPER: So, no Mexican judge could ever be involved in a case that involves you?

            TRUMP: Well, he’s a member of a society, where — you know, very pro-Mexico, and that’s fine. It’s all fine, but —

            To my point RE: the LaRaza affiliation.

            BTW, “Mexican” is not a race, rather a nationality.

  3. Rob! Everyone has beliefs, even if no belief is a belief. Keep circling the wagon, “And the Truth” will set you free!!!

Leave A Reply