Posted on 12/25/2018 7:37:36 AM PST by Kaslin
In the true spirit of the holiday season, Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) showed their true colors of bigotry and bias against Catholicism in a recent judicial confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill.
Before the committee was Omaha lawyer Brian C. Buescher, nominated by President Trump to represent the District of Nebraska on the United States District Court. Buescher is also a long-time member of the Knights of Columbus, an iconic service group of nearly two million Catholics, worldwide, that recruits members for volunteer work and fundraising for charitable causes. The Knights of Columbus have a distinguished reputation for selfless public service, charitable work and the promotion of Catholic values both within and outside of the church. Buescher’s membership did not sit well with Harris and Hirono, although the pair of potential 2020 contenders do not seem to actually understand the function of the Knights of Columbus society.
Originally founded in 1882, the Knights of Columbus started as a society benefitting poverty-stricken Catholic immigrants; now, the organization donates nearly 200 million dollars per year from approximately 15,000 chapters across twelve countries.
Senators Harris and Hirono insisted that Buescher’s membership gave him an inherent judicial bias, effectively disqualifying him from the opportunity to sit on the federal bench. Of course, Sen. Harris immediately defaulted to the gender card.
“Sen. Harris described the Knights as “an all-male society and asked if Buescher was aware that the Knights of Columbus “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and were against “marriage equality” when he joined,” the Catholic News Agency reported.
As anyone with a basic knowledge of the Catholic faith could easily confirm, the Knights of Columbus are, indeed, opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage, as the Catholic Church constitutes. However, as Americans saw in the confirmation hearings for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and many other federal court nominees, Senate Democrats insist that any remote tie to a religious or Conservative organization is nothing short of a disqualifier. This vendetta against President Trump’s judicial nominees is attributed to the Senators’ anti-Conservative bias, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of the courts and what a qualified judge truly looks like. A qualified nominee’s judicial intellect is derived from his or her years of studying the law, which builds their individual perspective on and interpretation of the law. Although ideology has potential to cloud judgement, impartiality, emotion and passion are not mutually exclusive; a judge’s ability to be impartial is completely dependent on their inclination to uphold the rule of law, however they see fit.
In response to a written question, per CNA, Buescher defended his judicial impartiality:
“...there is a difference between taking political positions as a candidate for elective office and serving as a federal judge. I believe a judge’s role and obligation is to apply the law without regard to any personal beliefs regarding the law.”
Judicial ability is not depleted by religion or ideology, or ties to related groups. The increasing bias from Senate Democrats against judicial nominees, fueled by the president who made the nominations, is a dangerous precedent to set for future confirmations. Judges should not be expected to be completely devoid of emotion, passion for certain causes or religious beliefs; these all uniquely shape each judge’s individual judicial philosophy.
Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee must put aside their obstructionist agenda, and look exclusively at the the objective judicial ability of nominees.
As an aside, the Sandinista’s supported ‘democratic socialism’, same as Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders.
Doesn’t have to sleep with 50 million only the right 50.
No real surprise from harris/hirohno as these are just run of the mill godless atheist communists.
Cameltoe the Bigot.
Harris and Hirono are not only bigots, but racist too.
They need to be defeated, but their constituents are brain dead.
Merry Christmas.
5.56mm
What would you like Catholics to do? Burn her house down?
Just one, who can vote 50 million times.
She is most likely unqualified to be president by virtue of nit being a natural born citizen. Both of eh parents were foreigners when she was born. She has been asked to verify their naturalization date but she and all off her offices refuse to reply to numerous requests.
She is aggressively liberal. She helped Newsome destroy San Fran and make it a sanctuary city. She investigated the guy who taped planned parenthood saying they sold body parts, but not planned parenthood.
What to Expect from a Kamala Harris Presidency(pronounced comma-lah)
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
Add Pelosi to the list.
Harris is a dip $hit. There are much more appropriate issues upon whici to criticize the Roman Catholic church. Just ask the thousands of victims of pedophile priests in the USA alone.
Thank you for pointing out constitutionally prohibited religious tests stylin19a.
“Sen. Harris described the Knights as “an all-male society and asked if Buescher was aware that the Knights of Columbus “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and were against “marriage equality” when he joined,” the Catholic News Agency reported.”
Regarding Sen. Harris’s “gender card,” the Constitution’s silence about a woman’s politically correct right to choose and likewise politically correct marriage issues means that such issues are uniquely state power issues, not the business of the feds.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Evidenced by their questioning of lawyer Brian C. Buescher, constitutionally low-information Senators Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono are unthinkingly unconstitutionally expanding the already unconstitutionally big federal government's powers imo.
In fact, since Democrats insanely passed the Obamacare bill without first reading it, it shouldn’t surprise anybody if misguided, politically correct politicians like post-17th Amendment ratification Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono swore to protect and defend the Constitution evidently without first reading it.
Yep It goes directly to the mind, the mindset, the thoughts
Harris is a dangerous bigot, daughter of our broken immigration system which is now being used to groom radicals like her.
Rather presumptuous commentary on your part. So you know the mind and political temperament of every Catholic? Being that I am a Fourth Degree “Sir” Knight in my Council, let me set you straight about our inclination to act on such an outrageously explicit example of anti-Catholic bigotry ...
The Knights do not take such political or cultural threats lightly. There will be consequences for Ms. Harris, both through our rather extensive organization and from those we influence - a rather large body of influence. In case you have not paid attention, Religious Liberty has been a key component in the KoC platform for the last several years.
Yes, you stupid twit, we're a society of MEN. Stuff it.
Yes, we oppose the bloody slaughter of pre-born babies. That's what MEN do: we protect the helpless. You, Kamal-toe? Looks like you're more into slaughtering the defenseless, you demonic freak!
Yes, we oppose sodomy. That's what MEN do: we know that the natural, God-ordained family partnership is composed of one man and one woman, dedicated to mutual love, respect, and support as long as both are alive. Your preference for perversion is noted and rejected, Kamal-toe.
We're not quite "there" yet ...
They would turn a blind eye if the candidate were a member of Rev.
Wright’s Chicago Church and listened to his anti Semitic bigotry for years.
Meanwhile, all the brilliant Kennedy Catholics in the Northeast keep voting for her party and her buddies.
You wonder how long they’re gonna keep doing this to themselves.
She would NOT do this to a Jew. a Muslim or an atheist!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.