After bashing Catholic faith of judge nominee, Dem senator comes back with ABSURD “justification”

To some, if the near half-century political career of California’s liberal senator Dianne Feinstein (which may be coming to the end as she approaches her 85th birthday), is to be memorable for anything besides its remarkable longevity, it will be for the bigotry she displayed in her cross-examination of appeals court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett.

As stated by Alexandra Desanctis for the National Review:

Barrett is a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who has written about the role of religion in public life and delivered academic lectures to Christian legal groups. Drawing on some of these materials, Feinstein launched a thinly veiled attack on Barrett’s Catholic faith, asserting that her religious views will prevent her from judging fairly.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.” Feinstein is clearly hinting here at the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that Feinstein supports so vociferously that she has even called it a “super-precedent.”

The video of the exchange can be seen here:

Many observers, Catholics in particular but people of faith, civil libertarians, and fair-minded people in general, united in being repulsed by the Senator’s line of questioning.

Princeton professor Robert P. George – himself a Catholic and conservative – tweeted:

However, it should also be noted that even Lawrence Tribe – the very liberal Harvard law professor – had this to add regarding Feinstein’s outrageous line of questioning:

Rather than resigning or apologizing, Senator Feinstein recently took to television to justify her obvious anti-Catholicism.

Responding to a soft line of questioning regarding the controversy from CNN‘s Dana Bash, the Senator said:

Feinstein said she was a product of Catholic education and called it a “great religion,” touting she’s tried to be helpful to the church anywhere she could.

However, she said, the nominee in this case had no trial or court experience and thus “no record.”

“She’s a professor, which is fine, but all we have to look at are her writings, and in her writings, she makes some statements which are questionable, which deserve questions,” Feinstein said.

Feinstein said Barrett’s past writings made it appropriate to ask her about the role of her faith.

This exchange can be seen here:

Interesting how easily a liberal finds it “appropriate” to ask a Catholic about his or faith, isn’t it?

For example, it was only a few months ago when Senator Bernie Sanders felt it appropriate to launch a tirade against Russell Vought, a deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget nominee, for Mr. Vought’s past written expressions of his evangelical Christian beliefs.

And in 2003 William Pryor’s nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was stalled because Democrats were troubled by Pryor’s “deeply held beliefs,” which was Senator Chuck Schumer’s euphemism for Pryor’s Catholicism.

Yet somehow it never seems appropriate to question the faith of someone who is Jewish or Muslim.

If, as it states in the Constitution, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” then perhaps that rule should apply to all people of faith, even Christians.

[Note: This post was written by dk. Find him online at the African American Conservatives (AACONS) website or AACONS on Twitter and Facebook]

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here