Liberals’ assault on Christian judges should anger many


Seems that for U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, being a believing Catholic is enough to disqualify a candidate for a federal judgeship.

Feinstein stated as such at confirmation hearings for Notre Dame law professor Amy Barrett, nominated by President Trump to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma,” explained the Senator. “And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to the big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

In follow-up clarification from Feinstein’s office, we learn that what’s foremost on the Senator’s mind is abortion.

“Professor Barrett has argued that a judge’s faith should affect how they approach certain cases. Based on this, Feinstein questioned her if she could separate her views from the law, particularly regarding women’s reproductive rights.”

But Professor Barrett is already on record, and widely quoted, that a judge should recuse himself or herself when deliberating a case that conflicts with his or her religious convictions.

Most fundamental, however, is a judge’s willingness and ability to think clearly, rigorously and honestly.

How is it that religious principle is “dogma,” but left-wing doctrine, spontaneously emerging from the minds of men and women with certain political predispositions, is not?

“Women’s reproductive rights”? Where does this come from? What exactly is the authority according to which we arrive to the conclusion, and codifying into law, that a woman has a “right” to destroy her innocent unborn child? From what incontrovertible eternal truth does this absurdity emerge?

I would put it, and Feinstein’s inquisition, more in the category of the famous quote of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can only be maintained for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

We have arrived to a sad state of affairs where many falsehoods have been widely peddled in society at large and ultimately accepted as truths. And the process whereby this has occurred is frighteningly like the process described by Goebbels. Alleged “facts,” emerging from politically interested parties, are repeated over and over in the media, until these “facts” are widely accepted as truth and then preserved by suppressing dissent.

After many years, many of these distortions have found their way into courtrooms and into law.

Now liberals like Feinstein, after having succeeded in rewriting much of our social script, and purging the biblically rooted truths that informed our law and replacing them with the premises of the secular humanism promoted on our college campuses, want to move forward with the rest of Goebbels’ program.

They want to use the state to repress dialogue and dissent.

In their view, a legal scholar who happens to believe that life is sacred, that to destroy life in the womb is murder, should be disqualified to be a federal judge.

Is their opinion the same regarding a legal scholar who happens to believe that marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman?

Feinstein and company should be on notice that, despite their inclinations, America remains a free nation and still, in the eyes of many, a free nation under God.

Far from being over, the cultural war is still going strong.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

READERS WRITE: MAY 22

Pitts’ ongoing liberal bigotry reflects badly on AJC I have been out of the country for four weeks, and as soon as I get back, I see the paper has not changed. Once again, you publish a racist writer, Leonard Pitts, and obviously support his comments. Your response is that you are open to other opinions. So then, why don’t you publish a...
Opinion: One family’s hell at the hands of an abusive justice system

The words that Rosie McIntyre chooses to describe what occurred in the police detective’s office are as searing as the allegation. “I felt like I was a n——r slave,” she said through tears. For a black woman, there’s hardly anything more degrading, she went on, explaining through wavering emotions. The feeling was...
Opinion: Just saying yes to drug companies

Last week we learned that Novartis, the Swiss drug company, had paid Michael Cohen — Donald Trump’s personal lawyer — $1.2 million for what ended up being a single meeting. Then, on Friday, Trump announced a “plan” to reduce drug prices. Why the scare quotes? Because the “plan” was mostly free of substance...
Opinion: Trump breaks bread, glasses and party at lunch

POTUS coming to Tuesday lunch. Translated, the president of the United States is joining 50 Republican senators in the Capitol to crash their private Tuesday lunch. Nobody is glad to hear this on the Senate side. We love the constitutional separation of powers. The Senate is the last citadel of democracy, they say. We in the press are free as birds...
READERS WRITE: MAY 20

Current pols’ mixing of church and state’s unseemly The flurry of so-called conservative candidates for state offices are now blatantly touting their “Christianity” on their TV commercials. We also have a Democrat candidate mentioning her preacher parents as one of her qualifications for office. There are all kinds of &ldquo...
More Stories