Kamala Harris vs the Knights of Columbus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Loud-living-dogma

Guest
Does everyone know about Kamala Harris and her attack on the Brian Buescher, who was a candidate for federal court, and a member of the Knights of Columbus? She had strongly worded questions for him. I just think everyone should know who the Democrats are these days:

“What Kamala Harris is suggesting is that membership in a 2-million-strong, 136-year-old Catholic social organization disqualifies an individual from the federal bench. She was joined in this line of questioning by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. The even worse news is that plenty of Senate Democrats agree with them. They’ve adopted a strategy of interrogating President Trump’s judicial nominees about Catholic beliefs and associations. It began in September 2017 when Dianne Feinstein told Amy Coney Barrett, now confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.””

 
This is the reason why I voted for Trump without apologies. No, neither the Republicans or Democrats line up with Catholic teaching on every issue. But only one of these political parties has engaged in direct attacks against the Church and has attempted to restrict its activities. Who tried (and is still trying) to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraception? Who has tried (and will continue trying) forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions? Who has forced Catholic adoption agencies to close because they won’t place children with gay couples? Who has tried to restrict the policies of Catholic institutions about who they can and cannot hire and terminate? Which party is likely to continue pushing such efforts in the future? Maybe the Republican party isn’t perfect, but at least you know that the Church will be allowed to carry out its social justice ministries when there is a check on the militant atheism that is at large in the Democratic part and American society today.
 
Kinda scary to think that she could be president, huh? I know that I don’t want her in there.
 
People who object to Kamala’s line of questioning obviously haven’t been reading any threads on this forum.

The question is (and should be) for ANY judge: “Are you going to decide cases based on the law or based on your private religious beliefs?” A fair question for anyone, not just Catholics.

Certainly based on my years of reading threads here, most posters–if they were judges–would decide cases based on their religious beliefs. Nice in a theocracy, but not in the USA.
 
I don’t know that it’s the case most people support a theocracy here—but I think there’s an open question about what should be the role of personal faith in a representative democracy. I’m not thrilled with the Knights of Columbus question at all. But I would worry about individuals overruling the will of the public based on their personal religion—whether that religion is mine or anyone else’s. But I understand people might see this differently.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
The question is (and should be) for ANY judge: “Are you going to decide cases based on the law or based on your private religious beliefs?” A fair question for anyone, not just Catholics.
Click to expand...
“Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?”
“Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights?” >“Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”
Click to expand...
It was Hirano that stated,
“the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”
Click to expand...
I didn’t find a full quote, but the articles are uniform in stating that they asked if he would quit his membership.

In the actual context (having actually read the primary sources) these are not “fair questions,” but a religious test.

hawk
 
While I completely agree with the sentiment of your post, I totally object to the line of questioning from Harris and Hirono.

Harris is an extremely smart woman and a very capable lawyer. She knew what she was doing. If all she wanted to know was whether or not he would be impartial, she would have asked him.
 
Does that really make any sense tho, that right wing identity politics makes you want to vote for another party that engages in left wing identity politics?
 
I thought the Senate just passed a resolution or law supported by both parties in support of the Knights, recognizing that it is a Fraternal organization and no questions need to be asked of future nominees for the bench regarding the Knights?
 
I live in San Francisco, California. I voted for her as Senator in 2017.

I will never vote for her again, even for dog catcher.

Forget her. Forget those who support her. I will not support her.

If she ends up as the Dem. challenger to Pres. Trump. I’ll vote 3rd party (not that it matters anyway).
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
The question is (and should be) for ANY judge: “Are you going to decide cases based on the law or based on your private religious beliefs?” A fair question for anyone, not just Catholics.
Click to expand...
Which was sufficiently answered by Buescher’s counsel, its only in the fevered imaginations of you and fellow liberal Catholics that he might be seen as a martyr.
 
What would be so hard in asking, point blank “what do you think about such and such…”

Too difficult, I’m sure. So much easier to assume based on religious patrimony. All’s well.
 
I recall when Sotomayor was in the news, and the slant was all about how empathetic she would be on the Supreme Court…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/28/sanchez.court/index.html
I guess we should be questioning judicial candidates about how they would rule based on religion, ethnicity, etc. But only for ones nominated by conservatives of course!
 
Last edited:
Well she tossed her hat into the ring of potential Dem candidates for president. She’s the “Obama” of the party right now. I was all about her until her behavior in the Kavanaugh and later Bueschener nonsense. Senator Harris, speak to me and fellow Californians in a becoming manner, without calling us “dogmatic devils”.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
Does everyone know about Kamala Harris and her attack on the Brian Buescher, who was a candidate for federal court, and a member of the Knights of Columbus? She had strongly worded questions for him. I just think everyone should know who the Democrats are these days:

“What Kamala Harris is suggesting is that membership in a 2-million-strong, 136-year-old Catholic social organization disqualifies an individual from the federal bench. She was joined in this line of questioning by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. The even worse news is that plenty of Senate Democrats agree with them. They’ve adopted a strategy of interrogating President Trump’s judicial nominees about Catholic beliefs and associations. It began in September 2017 when Dianne Feinstein told Amy Coney Barrett, now confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.””

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/kamala-harris-knights-of-columbus-religious-test/
Click to expand...
It will be ok. No one likes a sanctimonious holier than thou politician anyway.
They never learn. Be thankful.
 
Last edited:
Be thankful she’s too sanctimonious to become president? 🤣
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top