The Extremist Knights of Columbus

Two of our least respectable Senators, Harris and Hirono, ask a Federal judicial candidate if his membership in the Knights of Columbus isn’t disqualifying.

Given that the Knights’ positions are mere Catholicism, that sounds suspiciously like a religious test for office. Such tests are forbidden by the Constitution that these Senators have taken an oath to defend and protect. I wonder if either of them know what it means to take an oath?

The Knights of Columbus do.

11 comments:

Tom Williams said...

Nice post. I really enjoy reading it. Very instructive, keep on writing.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

In the Boston area, an enormous percentage of KOC would be Irish Democrats. The Senators might want to research topics a touch before making accusations.

E Hines said...

Such [religious] tests are forbidden by the Constitution that these Senators have taken an oath to defend and protect. I wonder if either of them know what it means to take an oath?

Sadly, Buescher did not respond to Hirono or Harris in that vein, as he should have done.

And, in response to a question on whether Buescher agreed with the KoC's position on abortion, he said, according to CNA, I did not draft this language. If confirmed, I would be bound by precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and would not be guided by statements made by others[] instead of saying he couldn't comment on a potential ruling on a case that might come before him.

I wonder if Bueschel has a clear enough understanding of the Constitution, oaths, and his role as a judge to be a judge.

Eric Hines

Dad29 said...

Baldwin (D-WI) is also an egregious violator of the Religion Test ban.

'S OK; as of January, the Senate will be Democrat-proof for judicial nominations.

Elise said...

... instead of saying he couldn't comment on a potential ruling on a case that might come before him.

I think Bueschner's response was appropriate since he was asked if he:

agree[d] with Mr. Anderson that abortion is "the killing of the innocent on a massive scale"?

rather than being asked about how he would rule on a particular case.

I at first thought I would have left off the stuff about "I did not draft this language" but since Bueschner uses that type of phrase more than once, I assume he is making a specific point, whether legal or simply logical. This seems especially likely since he uses the "couldn't comment" language over and over in response to other questions:

[This] is currently the subject of litigation around the country. Pursuant to Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to opine further.

I read the pdf linked in the CNA article which includes questions from Feinstein, Durbin, Coons, and Booker, as well as Harris and Hirono. The questions are simply beyond belief. The language, the assumptions about what is the correct outcome, the sheer idiocy is breathtaking. These people are nuts.

E Hines said...

I think Bueschner's response was appropriate since he was asked if he:

agree[d] with Mr. Anderson that abortion is "the killing of the innocent on a massive scale"?

rather than being asked about how he would rule on a particular case.


Yeah, but his answer indicated a predisposition to rule in a particular way; I think judicial nominees should give no such indications.

On the rest, I tend to agree with you. I also tend to believe, though, that these people are enormously intelligent, and they know exactly what they're doing--and so I think they're more dishonest than nuts.

Eric Hines

Elise said...

these people are enormously intelligent, and they know exactly what they're doing--and so I think they're more dishonest than nuts

Even if so, they're still nuts. They seem to have no idea how dangerous what they're doing is and how little they would like living in the society/country/world they are creating by their dishonesty.

E Hines said...

They seem to have no idea how dangerous what they're doing is and....

That's much of their dishonesty: they don't care. They've moving for personal political gain, and very little else.

Eric Hines

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I agree with E Hines. The point is to have power and tell others what to do.

douglas said...

Of course it is. They admit it with their embrace of intersectionality- it's all about the redistribution of power.

Ymarsakar said...

https://neonnettle.com/news/4149-pope-francis-gun-owners-can-t-call-themselves-christian-anymore

“The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher responded.

“If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges regarding recusal and disqualification,” he said.


A Catholic's loyalty contest would be with Jesuits and the P of Rome, not some sub branch organization.

http://truthontheweb.org/abe.htm

Foreign organizations and groups messing with the US is not exactly rare historically. Diane West American Betrayal something and Jonah's Liberal Fascism. Bella Dodd's School of Darkness. Yuri Bezmenov's youtube videos.