After Senator Kamala Harris spent weeks helping other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee smear the good name of then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, she and her colleagues attempted to create a religious test for a candidate nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska.
An abortion and “LGBTQ rights” fanatic like most top Democrats, the Democrat vice presidential candidate and the others grilled Brian Buescher, whom the Senate confirmed, about his Catholic faith and membership in the Knights of Columbus.
Being a member of the Knights and a faithful Catholic, could Buescher square his faith with his duties as a judge, the Democrats asked in written questions. The not-so-subtle implication was that Catholics should not be judges if they oppose the mass murder of the unborn or homosexual “marriage” and other so-called rights.
No Opposing Abortion for Catholic Judges
“Since 1993, you have been a member of the Knights of Columbus, an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men,” Harris stated. “In 2016, Carl Anderson, leader of the Knights of Columbus, described abortion as ‘a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths.’ Mr. Anderson went on to say that ‘abortion is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale.’”
Harris doesn’t see abortion that way, of course, and so she opened her questions on abortion and the Knights with this one: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?”
Amusingly, Buescher answered that he was 18 when he joined, and did “not recall if I was aware whether the Knights of Columbus had taken a position on the abortion issue” at the time.
Harris also wanted to know whether Buescher agreed with Anderson; i.e., that abortion is “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale?” Buescher answered that he didn’t draft the language in question, but that as a judge he would be bound by precedents set by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court.
He answered similarly to this question: “Do you agree with Mr. Anderson that legal abortion in the United States has “resulted in more than 40 million deaths”?
Harris asked whether Buescher “in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights” and then moved to the Knights’ support for Proposition 8, the California ballot question that defined marriage as between one man and one woman: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?” Harris asked.
And so again, Buescher explained that he did not remember whether the Knights opposed same-sex marriage when he was 18, and did not help draft the Knights’ statements on the matter.
None of the questions were designed to elicit serious answers, but instead to create the impression that Catholics in general and members of the Knights of Columbus in particular, are unable to discharge judicial duties fairly.
Other Questions About the Knights
Hawaii’s Maize Hirono, who told men to “shut up” during the rape-smear campaign against Kavanaugh, was particularly exercised about the Knights as well.
The angry Japanese immigrant suggested that Buescher could not do his job properly because he was a Catholic and a Knight. She wanted to know whether Buescher would quit the Knights, recuse himself from court cases involving the Knights, and, again, given his Knights memberships, whether he could discharge his duties impartially.
Yet the attack on Buescher’s faith was nothing new for the committee’s abortion fanatics. When President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic and Notre Dame University law professor, for the 7th Circuit of Appeals, they similarly roasted her for her faith.
Senator Dick Dubin asked whether Barrett is an “orthodox Catholic.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein told Barrett that orthodox Catholics should not be judges:
Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that — you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. 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 big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.
Image: Screenshot from KofC.org
