Category Archives: courts

An Act of Deception, and the Anti Christian Union has a party over the death of a baby ( sad )

Listen to the commentary

Advertisements

BreakPoint: The Dogma of Sens. Feinstein and Franken

.      

On May 8, 2017, President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to a seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

By any reasonable measure, Barrett is beyond qualified. After graduating with highest honors from Notre Dame Law School, she clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court. And a few years later, she returned to Notre Dame. There, she “teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation.”

She is exactly the kind of person you want serving on the Court of Appeals, if we lived in more reasonable times.

As her Notre Dame affiliation suggests, Barrett is a Catholic, which wouldn’t be an issue if she were the kind of Catholic whose faith is so private, as the old joke goes, that she wouldn’t impose it on herself.

But she’s the kind of Catholic who lives as if her faith is actually true.

At her confirmation hearings, Senator Diane Feinstein, channeling Darth Vader in Star Wars, told Barrett that “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.” An example of what Feinstein considers “loudly living dogma” is Barrett’s address to the Law School’s 2006 graduating class.

Barrett said that “Your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God. . . . [I]f you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”

Feinstein and other Democratic senators also pointed to a 1998 article on the death penalty, which the Catholic Church opposes in all but a few, highly improbable, instances. Barrett wrote that “Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard. Perhaps their good example will have some effect.”

What Barrett had in mind was recusal, which is done to insure impartiality. But to hear Feinstein and others discuss it, you would have thought that Barrett was talking about an auto-da-fé, the burning of heretics.

But by far the most ridiculous moment came when senator Al Franken compared Barrett’s speaking before the Alliance Defending Freedom to giving a speech to Pol Pot, the genocidal Cambodian dictator. I am not making this up.

Coming on the heels of Bernie Sanders’ mistreatment of Russell Vought, a Wheaton College grad, over his belief that Jesus is the only way to the Father, it’s clear that some Democrats seem intent on imposing a de facto religious test for government office, notwithstanding the Constitution’s explicit prohibition of such a test.

Of course, they deny they’re doing any such thing. Instead, in the case of Barrett, they’re recycling one of the oldest prejudices in American life: “The notion that Catholics are so beholden to Rome as to be incapable of rendering independent judgment in public office.”

The modern version, as the late Richard John Neuhaus used to say, goes “the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic,” someone who doesn’t live as if his faith were actually true.

As Russell Vought learned, the same is also true for Evangelicals. For some people, even the gentlest, most winsome faith is simply beyond the pale.

Richard Dawkins asks a very good question about a faith in a god

Listen to, or read the commentary.

President Trump needs to focus on the bench, not on folks who are looking into the Russia issue

Republicans have enough problems on their hands. There are 20 vacancies on the circuit court of appeals and over 100 vacancies on the lower courts for which there has not been a nomination put forward yet. This is unacceptable. It’s a failure of governance.

( Read, or listen to the rest of this commentary. )

Charles was wrong on little Charlie

The more I read, and watch Charles Krauthammer the more I struggle if he is truly on the right.
In a recent column Charles kind of stood behind the system in the UK which kept the parents of that little boy Charlie Gard from bringing him to America. Little Charlie died yesterday, and from what I heard the British hospital he was in would not even let his mommy, and daddy take him home to die at their home. Talk about evil, and mean.
The issue in Gard case was not that the tax payers of England having to pay for treatment here in America. The parents had raised money to pay for the treatment themselves.
Krauthammer in his column seem to accept the idea that the courts, and doctors of the U.K. knew what was best.
That is not even the issue. The issue is should they decide if little Charlie was brought to America. Don’t parents have the right to decide about healthcare for their children. Unless there is abuse involved.
Krauthammer writes in his column sometimes parents are wrong. I agree, but what about judges, and doctors. They are not perfect either. But this again should not be about who was right, or who knows what is best for the child. This should have been about who has the right to decide.
When you give a government control of healthcare as has happened in England this kind of issue may happen. Are you listening parents of America. This is another reason us in America needs to get Obamacare off the books. Too bad the Democrats in the Senate along with three GOP senators has made this kind of thing a possibility here in America.

Parents’ loss in UK highlights need in U.S.

Here is the story.

UK government is not little Charlie’s mommy, or daddy ( sure you want this kind of healthcare system here in America )

Little Charlie

Anyone looking for another reason not to leave life-and-death issues to the state need look no further than the conflict between the British government and the parents of 11-month-old Charlie Gard.

Governments, including the British courts and the European court of human rights have refused to allow Charlie’s parents to take him to the U.S. for what they believe is life-saving treatment. In what many will regard as a cynical decision, UK judge Nicholas Francis gave Charlie’s parents just two days to present new evidence as to why their son should receive experimental treatment. A final decision will be handed down in a hearing on Thursday.

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital where Charlie is on a ventilator, his brain reportedly damaged from a rare genetic condition, argue that he should be removed from life support and allowed to die. President Trump has offered help. Pope Francis also supports the parent’s right to determine what is best for their child.

Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, believe an experimental treatment known as nucleoside therapy might work on their son. British doctors say it won’t improve the child’s “quality of life.” They want him to die. Apparently that’s OK with the state-run National Health Service (NHS), which is always looking for ways to cut costs.

The parents have raised enough money to take Charlie to America for treatment. Wouldn’t most parents do all they could for their child, especially one so young who is helpless and at the mercy of adults? I know I would for my grandson, who is also named Charlie.

( Read the rest of this spot on column by Cal Thomas. )

Proof Justice Kennedy Is Retiring?

Read the story.

President Trump wants to help a sick UK boy who parents the court has ruled don’t have the right to have the boy treated in the US

President Donald Trump offered to help a terminally ill British baby on Monday, saying on Twitter that “if we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.”

Charlie Gard suffers from a rare genetic condition and is unable to breathe unaided. Last week, his parents lost a legal battle to take him to the U.S. for trial therapy. His parents and a London children’s hospital said Friday that the 10-month-old boy will be given “more time” before life support is withdrawn.

White House spokeswoman Helen Aguirre Ferre said that members of the Trump administration have spoken to Gard’s family.

“Although the president himself has not spoken to the family, he does not want to pressure them in any way, members of the administration have spoken to
( More )

San Fran Paying $190,000 to ILLEGAL Immigrant?!’ Tucker Can’t Believe

Video