Statement from the Candidate

In 2010 I ran an unsuccessful campaign for the United States Congress, but I'm still posting blogs that I believe express an opinion that most other people miss, and that I also believe can make America great again and cast off the yoke of liberal/progressive control that is currently in place.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

The Liberal Senate’s Judicial Nominee Religious Test

There was a time in America when attending church and abiding by the practices and teachings of a religion were qualities that were respected and looked up to by everyone, and it spoke well for those seeking pubic office and was widely thought to be a natural stepping stone in a public career and for someone seeking a seat on a federal court.

But that was a more reasonable time when substantive things mattered and reasonable politicians were deciding who our future judges would be. During the previous administration, Barack Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court simply because she had a “non-traditional” background and upbringing and because she stressed and supported liberal causes, completely ignoring whether she formed good, constitutionally sound opinions on her previous bench appointments and whether or not she would serve the welfare of America and the constitution in her future decisions. But let a more traditional, non-leftist appointee be nominated to the bench and the liberals on the Senate Judiciary Committee lose their minds.

Amy Barrett, a distinguished law professor at Notre Dame, has been appointed by President Trump to a vacant seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee could not contain themselves from getting very personal and suggesting that Professor Barrett was not a good candidate for the open position because she is a practicing Catholic, and we all know that religion, especially Christianity, is a massive target that all liberal politicians like to take pot-shots at. One strongly suspects that since Ms Barrett is a Catholic, her probable stand on abortion was the grievous sin that the liberal Senators were trying to criticize without actually having to say it. The current officially approved preference for liberal Democrats is to abort babies, not birth them.

Democrats have a lot of nerve stating that Catholics would be bad for the court because they may bring their religion to the bench (one remembers clearly when some Americans said the same thing about the presidency when John Kennedy, himself a Catholic, was running for the White House), especially since each of these smug Democrats represent the most narrow-minded, closed-minded, prejudiced people in the nation. So now liberals are suggesting a Judicial litmus test for making judicial appointments.

Maybe in the future patriotic, non-leftist Senators on the Judiciary Committee should make it a parallel litmus rest to reject any female judicial appointee who had actually had an abortion or had given money to Planned Parenthood, along with any male appointee who does not attend a Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue regularly. Applying a litmus test of any kind has been specifically forbidden by leftist politicians for many decades, until their own anti-American and anti-constitutional schemes are at stake, then they’ll apply any off-the-wall argument to gain or retain power and influence, and in the current case of Donald Trump’s current appointee to a vacant Circuit Court position, they’ll happily and proudly defame, insult and reject the good lady being considered. And that’s how America’s radical, leftist, establishment politicians demonstrate their own religion of diversity.