Category Archives: Sonia Sotomayor

Liberal Hypocrisy

2017_09 Amy Barrett

One of Trump’s nominees for appeals court is Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a Roman Catholic. Democrats Feinstein, Hirono, and Durbin made her religious convictions an issue during her confirmation hearing.

Republican Sen. Ben Sasse noted that this line of questioning violated the Constitution’s religious test clause.

Durbin said that, because Barrett has been “outspoken” on the topic of “how a person with strong religious beliefs becomes a judge and looks at American law”, the questions were legitimate.

I think it’s more to the point to say that Democrats can’t stand conservative Christians, especially not the Catholic ones, and that they have zero qualms about making religion an issue when it suits them. You KNOW they’d be screaming bloody murder if Republicans asked a Muslim jurist how his faith would influence his judicial conduct.

Remember when long-time Leftist Sonia Sotomayor said she’d be a good SCOTUS judge, because she was a “wise Latina”?

Obama et al. didn’t care that she had never issued any important decisions, made a name for herself as a legal scholar or particularly respected jurist, and that 60% of her lower court decisions had been overturned on appeal. They only cared that she could be relied on to ignore the law in favor of promoting Progressive causes.

Barrett herself said, “It is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions, whether it derives from faith or personal conviction. My own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.”

Not that they believed her.  Personally, I think they assume everyone is as willing to prostitute themselves for politics as they themselves are.



Filed under Ben Sasse, Christianity, Constitution, Democrats, Dick Durbin, Sonia Sotomayor

Ideological Purity

The Anchoress (aka Elizabeth Scalia) writes:

I stopped being a Democrat when it became clear that I was expected to vacate any of my own thoughts and opinions in order to fall in line with the party, or be called moronic or hateful or bigoted or even evil. There was no way the party could be wrong on anything, therefore dissent indicated a problem originating with me. “I” had the problem; not the party.

Don’t snigger, conservatives, you have your narrow-minded purists, too. Perhaps you’ve never marched in lockstep with quite the same precision as the Democrats, but you’ve run your own purges, and handily. Because whom the godlings of ideologies would destroy, they first make mad.

Currently Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is being sized up for a suit of tar and feathers or, more precisely, she is being warned that one awaits her, if she does not quickly fall back in line and do what she was supposed to do, was expected to do when President Obama nominated her to the bench: rubber-stamp his dubious policies once they landed before her, as expected.

Read the rest @

The line – “There was no way the party could be wrong on anything” – jumped out at me, because I just saw it last night in a book published in 1954, called Don Camillo’s Dilemma by Giovannino Guareschi.

In the part I read last night, the Communist daughter of the Communist mayor of the town, Peppone, has learned she is one of the finalists in a beauty contest. Her boyfriend is incensed at the idea of her going to Rome to parade in front of people in a skimpy bathing suit. However, he cannot say so, as this would betray him as a bourgeois chauvinist, so instead he objects to the pageant itself, saying that it is bourgeois. She counters that it must be politically correct, because the party is sponsoring the contest and “There was no way the party could be wrong on anything.”

Ideological purity is nothing new and The Anchoress is correct to point out that the we have our own narrow-minded purists on our side as well. I expect every group has them. I’ve certainly seen it in my Catholic experience.

  • On the right, a man who refused to sit with his family at Christmas Mass, because that side of the church would be receiving Eucharist from a lay minister and he only took it from the priest.
  • On the left, a nun who refused to give Eucharist to a war veteran because he had carried a gun into battle and, in her mind, that made him guilty of mortal sin.*

*Please note: The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is not translated correctly. The original is “Thou shalt not murder.” Anyone who watches crime procedurals should be very clear on the distinction between killing and murder. And Jesus never condemned soldiers; in fact, he commended one for his great faith.

The Anchoress’ article is a review of an op-ed in US News and World Report entitled “The Catholic Supreme Court’s War on Women.” The specific issue I find particularly interesting is that while the Left is unsurprisingly outraged at Sotomayor’s siding with the nuns, the outrage expressed in this particular screed is based entirely on the premise that she’s doing it because …. gasp …. she’s a CATHOLIC. [Cue creepy music and fog machine.]

2014_01 08 Review Catholic SCOTUS war on women

The Anchoress has a way with words. I especially like this summation of the op-ed: “bigotry intent on fomenting paranoia.” Also, “Are not the women who serve the indigent poor as entitled to justice as anyone else? Do Justice and Mercy only trend in one direction, in Stiehm’s world? Are they only rewarded to the socially obedient? Oh, my! Steihm sounds exactly like what she imagines the church to be: an entity demanding only one’s strict and unthinking obedience. Funny how easily we can become precisely the thing we hate, isn’t it?”

I recommend you read her entire piece.



Filed under Armed Forces, Catholic Church, Democrats, Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court

Update: Court challenges to HHS Mandate UPDATED

UPDATE 1: Dec 31, 2013 at 4:58 pm An emergency injunction granted just moments ago in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit means that Priests for Life will not have to obey the contraception mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act as its appeal is being heard. It also means that, tomorrow, Priests for Life will not have to cancel health insurance for its employees.

UPDATE 2: Tuesday night, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor acted on an emergency request from an order of Catholic nuns in Colorado to block the HHS Mandate starting January 1. Justice Sotomayor is giving the government until Friday morning to respond to her decision. … SOTOMAYOR blocked the HHS Mandate?! Did the sun set in the East or something?

OBAMA All your conscience are belong to us

  • December 16, 2013: U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan in the Eastern District of New York ruled FOR religious liberty in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius.
  • December 19, 2013: U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the Eastern District of New York ruled AGAINST religious liberty in Priests for Life v. Sebelius.

Dec 23, 2013: Fr. Frank Interviewed on Fox News about the HHS Mandate [0:49]

Priests for Life is appealing and has declared that, regardless of the outcome, they will NOT comply with the HHS Mandate.

If you want to help with their legal expenses:


  • Priests for Life
  • PO Box 141172
  • Staten Island, NY 10314

If you have any questions, call Priests for Life toll-free at 888-735-3448.


My Priests for Life email

RULING: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius @

Click to access 20131216_EDNY_%20opinion.pdf

NY Judge Rules against Government on HHS Mandate

FILING: Priests for Life v. Sebelius @

Click to access priests-for-life-v-sebelius.pdf

[I couldn’t find a ruling or a news report on the Priests for Life case, maybe because it was a dismissal. As I understand it, the judge just said, “Go away, fools.” Or something.]

Comments Off on Update: Court challenges to HHS Mandate UPDATED

Filed under Barack Obama, Catholic Church, HHS, Obamacare, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court