- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Democrats Vs. Ordinary Catholic Guys

“Why are you Christians so paranoid about the Democrats?”

Because of things like this: [1]

A judicial nominee faced questions from Senators this month about whether membership in the Knights of Columbus might impede his ability to judge federal cases fairly. The Knights of Columbus say that no candidate for public office should have to defend his membership in a Catholic service organization.

Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) raised concerns about membership in the Knights of Columbus while the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the candidacy of Brian C. Buescher, an Omaha-based lawyer nominated by President Trump to sit on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Senators also asked whether belonging to the Catholic charitable organization could prevent judges from hearing cases “fairly and impartially.”

In written questions sent to Buescher by committee members Dec. 5, Sen. Hirono stated that “the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

Hirono then asked Buescher if he would quit the group if he was confirmed “to avoid any appearance of bias.”

The Knights of Columbus [2]! A Catholic fraternal and social service organization, to which 1.6 million Catholic men around the world belong! It was created in the 19th century because Catholics couldn’t be Freemasons, and because anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant prejudice kept Catholics out of other fraternal and social service organizations.

And now anti-Catholic bigotry is coming back in the guise of progressivism.

It is hard to overemphasize how mainstream the Knights of Columbus are. Yet these Democratic senators — including Kamala Harris, who is believed to be planning a run for US president in 2020 — are demonizing the K of C for — brace yourselves — endorsing what the Catholic Church teaches. See here for all the questions asked of Buescher by Democratic senators.  [3]

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Knights Of Columbus?

Don’t think they won’t turn the K of C into a “hate group” in the eyes of the establishment. They did it with the Boy Scouts of America. I just hope that President Harris will find it in her heart to allow a Knights Of Columbus Story Hour in the public libraries.

Advertisement
93 Comments (Open | Close)

93 Comments To "Democrats Vs. Ordinary Catholic Guys"

#1 Comment By Connecticut Farmer On December 22, 2018 @ 7:21 pm

@ Siralys Jenkins

Are you now equating or have you ever equated membership in the Knights of Columbus with membership in the Communist Party?

#2 Comment By charles cosimano On December 22, 2018 @ 8:11 pm

PAX said, “Nearly 30 percent of Californians are Catholic. Let’s help recall this bigot. Certainly, make her antiCatholicism an issue when she runs again. (I would wager the 30 percent is a big underestimate)”

Ok, That means that at least there are 70% of Californians who are not Catholic and the actual percentage is probably far higher. Make that an issue and hear the squishing noise as the Catholics are crushed like large, annoying insects. (You have to love it when people can’t add.)

About that number being low? Religious things tend to poll higher than they are in actuality so the real number is probably closer to 20%, if that high. If you factor in actual practice, as opposed to just checking a box, the number may as low as 10% if not lower.

You do not have a chance in a statewide election. You are an insignificant minority which in the minds of the bulk of the voters has nothing of value to say under the best of circumstances. Grown men in silly hats with toy swords will not change that.

#3 Comment By Thomas Aquinas On December 22, 2018 @ 9:02 pm

What makes Senators Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris, and Beto, especially bad is their belief in their own moral purity. Mark my words: in 20 years there will be reeducation camps throughout the USA in order to make sure that dissenting citizens are woke. It will be framed as “public health,” or some other Orwellian term, but it will be ubiquitous, and you will be afraid to challenge it. The “experts,” after all, will say it is necessary, just as they say today that it is necessary for 8-year-old boys who think they are girls to cut their genitalia off. There will also be the euthanizing of dissenters, since the publishing of their beliefs “kills people.” Because self-defense is a justified form of killing, terminating these dissenters will be supported on those grounds. (this stuff pretty writes itself)

If Trump wins reelection, this will surely come quickly after his second term, since the desire for redemption and revenge will overwhelm the Left. They did it already under Mao and the Bolsheviks. Why not here?

It’s pretty much over. Lord come quickly.

#4 Comment By Noah172 On December 22, 2018 @ 9:18 pm

Harve wrote:

There are consequences to meddling in the private lives of strangers

Marriage licenses — who gets them, who doesn’t, what benefits accrue to their holders — are public acts. Reforming them required a public debate.

it is clear that the vote wasn’t representative of actual attitudes of the majority of Californians

You know people change their minds sometimes, don’t you? Prop 8 would not pass now, but it did pass then because that’s where public opinion was. Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed redefining marriage in 2008. Your response: “They didn’t really believe that! They were just pandering to moderates!” Exactly right. They understood that a majority of the public at that time, in 2008, even in California, was still against redefining marriage.

If Prop 8 did not reflect the true state of public opinion in California in 2008, then logically neither did Obama’s large victory in the state, nor the Democratic dominance of the Congressional and legislative districts.

Initiative elections in California are often a total roll of the dice

When Team Hillary used the phrase “roll of the dice” against Obama in 2008, Team O said that was racist. Watch your mouth, bigot!

The state is huge with multiple, very expensive media markets. In 2008 we had a presidential election plus all the congressional and state Assembly seats, half the state Senate seats, lots of local seats, and twelve propositions. There is only so much talent available to run things

Yeah, it’s not like California is home to the film and TV business, Big Tech, top universities, and scads of liberal activists. Oh, wait, it is…

Prior to that I had read that Karl Roves’ PAC was dropping bucks into California

And Karl Rove has such pull in California that he won the state twice for Bush. Oh, wait…

In 2000 I buttonholed one of Gore’s people at the L.A. convention and told her Nader was going to be a problem

If people were freely choosing a protest-vote third-party candidate, while a much larger group who had voted for Clinton were going for Bush, maybe Gore was the problem.

Hillary brought Penn into her 2008 campaign

Penn helped Bill win the shutdown battles with the Gingrich Congress, re-election, and impeachment. Maybe his time had come and gone by 2008, but the Clintons weren’t crazy to trust his judgment given their 90s experience. Give Bill Clinton credit for knowing a thing or two about political combat, whatever his failings.

Mook was clueless

But he was the first gay to run a major-party Presidential campaign, and at only 37, so your criticism of him is homophobic and ageist. Rules are rules.

#5 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 22, 2018 @ 11:52 pm

Are you now equating or have you ever equated membership in the Knights of Columbus with membership in the Communist Party?

I’m equating “are you now or have you ever been” as a syllogism for political persecution. And I am saying it is quite as legitimate to be a member of the Communist Party as it is to be a member of the Knights of Columbus. Communists do a great deal of good in the community, are pleasant neighbors, etc.

Marriage licenses — who gets them, who doesn’t, what benefits accrue to their holders — are public acts. Reforming them required a public debate.

Valid point.

it is clear that the vote wasn’t representative of actual attitudes of the majority of Californians

In politics, that is code for “the people didn’t vote the way I think they should have.” And yes, I accepted that when Scott Walker won his recall election, it was because a majority of voters voted to keep him in office. I have some thoughts about how the Dems blew what should have been a slam dunk, but the vote was what it was. One of Walker’s aides got to intone “This is what democracy looks like.”

Using your own criteria, that doesn’t sound like religious activity to me. Sounds political.

Strange as it may seem, “religion” is singled out by the constitution as something congress may not infringe, while “charitable” is not mentioned in the constitution at all. We are talking about two very different constructs, neither of which is totally muzzled from political expression. Charitable FUNDS however may not legally be used for political campaigning.

If Kamala Harris has her way only card-carrying leftist neocons can be judges

I wouldn’t trust Kamala Harris with any office of public trust, but, leftist neocons is an oxymoron. And Harris isn’t remotely left.

The argument reminds me of the ones against Brown and the courts. Then when the Congress addressed the issue, it should be the states, and when the states do anything, it always seems the time isn’t right.

Harve, what’s the difference between a duck? The constitutional status of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas (you really must be precise in your presentations — even in caps the word Brown has a lot of meanings, and at first I thought of Jerry) is based on the specific issues in that case, and the actual constitutional language that applied. Hard as it may be for you to grasp, it is entirely possible for the constitution to specifically forbid discrimination based on race in assigning students to public schools, without mandating that a licensing process for a man and woman getting married be extended to various social patterns that are not a man and a woman getting married.

As Justice Potter Stewart wrote in his concurrence to Loving v. Virginia, no law can pass constitutional muster that makes an act a crime, or not, depending in the race of the actor. That says all that really needed to be said about anti-miscegenation laws, and has no bearing on whether marriage needs to be redefined because somebody or other wants in with a whole new paradigm.

#6 Comment By Nkc On December 23, 2018 @ 12:27 am

I’m waiting for the demand for a name change to Knights of Indiginous Peoples. It was a satire story in the EOTT back in October. These days satire has a way of becoming reality.

#7 Comment By Thaomas On December 23, 2018 @ 8:08 am

Even for a lot of Catholics the K of C signals pretty conservative views that we do not want to see among Federal Judges.

#8 Comment By Ron On December 23, 2018 @ 8:36 am

If the nominee were a member of a mohammedan organization this would be front page news.

#9 Comment By peace be with you On December 23, 2018 @ 9:04 am

Harris and Hirono are about as likable as Hillary Clinton. Neither one of them is going anywhere nationally, and I’d guess that Harris will fail re-election.

A politician must be pretty deep in the PC bubble to imagine that they can openly show such hatred and intolerance for Catholics and Catholicism.

#10 Comment By JWJ On December 23, 2018 @ 12:49 pm

Leftism is a totalitarian(sp?) religion/political belief system.

Harris et al are not religious bigots as they follow the leftist religion. These adherents to leftism just want to eliminate competing religions.
They want a religious test for government and university positions. The test is whether the applicant is a follower of leftism.

#11 Comment By Penrod On December 23, 2018 @ 2:10 pm

Thomas Aquinas: “Mark my words: in 20 years there will be reeducation camps throughout the USA in order to make sure that dissenting citizens are woke.”

We already have them all over the country: they are called public elementary schools, public high schools, and state and private colleges and universities.

#12 Comment By Hound of Ulster On December 23, 2018 @ 2:18 pm

The KoC are now a partisan Right-Wing organization, and a giant insurance fund, but one with many of the same problems that other Catholic public orgs are having right now wrt discipline, declining membership (they used to be big in the NY suburb I grew up in, but have been in decline for awhile) etc.

The line of questioning is goofy and badly stated (Harris ain’t Presidental material, and the only supporters she has for that are Great Mentioner articles in the DC press. Polling suggests Biden, if he runs, will be the front-runner, with Beto as a dark-horse and Sanders, if he runs, playing his same role as in 2016. Watch out for Sherrod Brown however), but it is not entirely out of line. How is it different than some of the even more daft questions about ‘muh Sharia law’ that Muslim public officials get, at least in terms of violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment?

It seems the criticism is mainly about whose ox is being gored…and the judge’s membership in the Federalist (Sociopath) Society is an order of magnitude more troubling from a left perspective, and maybe even Red Tory perspective considering how much deference the FS shows to maximalist interpretations of corporate property rights questions.

The notion that Christians will ever face any sort of persecution in the US, especially in light of what is actually happening in the ME and China, is absurd. Is it persecution you are scared of, or a loss of hegemonic control over society?

And this idea that we should fear something which will probably never happen to us, but all but ignore what is actually happening to our brothers and sisters (in the case of the Palestinians with the enthusiastic support of the current admin which is enthusiastically supported by some of the same people having a meltdown over Sen. Harris’s behavior) strikes me as bizarre and self-absorbed.

Also, so what if we are persecuted? We survived, and triumphed, every time it happened, because Christ is Risen! And no earthly power can take away that universe-shaking triumph over death and sin. Diocletian could not, Stalin could not, and the current government of China is about to discover that it can stop it either. So to say that the junior senator from California is playing way above her pay grade would be an understatement.

@Charles Cosomino
There are probably fewer actual practicing Christians in the US than their are GLBT types, as opposed to the functional atheists, various flavors of heretics, and cafeteria ‘Christians’, who make up the vast majority of the population of the US. So yeah, the idea that somewhere out there is a great mass of believers who will turn people like Sen. Harris our of office is laughable.

#13 Comment By SteveP On December 23, 2018 @ 3:48 pm

To be clear, it’s the Catholic hierarchy that says Catholic men can’t be Freemasons, not the Masonic fraternity. Masonry requires belief in deity and is non sectarian. How the brother practices that belief is up to the conscience of the individual.

#14 Comment By Robert W Roth On December 23, 2018 @ 5:07 pm

Correct name is Maize Moron!

#15 Comment By Santa Monican On December 23, 2018 @ 10:16 pm

@peace be with you : how such hatred and intolerance for Catholics and Catholicism.

Harris comes from a Hindu-Baptist background and is married to a Jew. Hirono was born in Japan and appears to be the Senate’s first lady Buddhist, and seems to have had a particularly tough time of it growing up. One might have expected someone from “inclusive” or “diverse” backgrounds like these to be more tolerant of others. But judging by their view of the Knights of Columbus, it instead bred paranoia, suspicion, and bigotry.

Hawaii being Hawaii, it will probably keep returning Hirono, but I’d guess Harris gets the boot in 2022. Her victory over her Hispanic Catholic opponent was razor thin, and it won’t survive what is already a well-established pattern of anti-Catholic attacks in the Judiciary Committee hearings.

#16 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 23, 2018 @ 10:51 pm

Harris et al are not religious bigots as they follow the leftist religion.

Don’t give them undeserved credit. Religions are about God, gods, deities, dryads and nyads, or at least states of existence and reality that transcend the material universe.

Besides, you can believe in a Catholic God and be a bigot toward Lutherans, or vice versa.

#17 Comment By Central Penna. On December 23, 2018 @ 11:25 pm

In my neck of the woods the K of C, Masons, Elks, Kiwanis collaborate on charitable events.

These groups generally include upstanding citizens, what used to be called “pillars of the community”. I’m sure some have bad apples, but I can’t imagine why the senators would attack someone for belonging to them.

Everything’s upside down these days.

#18 Comment By Northern Observer On December 24, 2018 @ 10:22 am

No one expects the Progressive Inquisition!

#19 Comment By TR On December 24, 2018 @ 10:29 am

The Knights of Columbus have been excoriated elsewhere on this blog for their contributions to the “clericalism” problems in the church, of which they are certainly guilty.

Politically, I suspect they are a non-factor.

#20 Comment By Maria On December 24, 2018 @ 11:26 am

I am extremely disappointed with the Democrat party that I grew up with. Then it was a champion of the worker and the family. No longer. Now it is a champion of population control disguised as gay rights (same sex behaviors); abortion disguised as women’s reproductive rights; euthanasia disguised as death with dignity; minimum wages or Walmart wages disguised as workers rights vs living wages; population control disguised as climate change.

Who would have thought that Johnson’s War on Poverty was really about exterminating the poor through abortion, assisted suicide, and promoting the same sex behaviors that result in no children? Who would have thought the War on Poverty would be promoting of such violence against the poor rather than helping the poor?

Who would have thought that the average worker in America now has no health insurance, union protection, Walmart wages, unaffordable colleges, and houses? Compare that to what the worker had when Johnson started his War on Poverty as the result of organized labor vs government interference in the workplace. The government gave away high paying jobs to oversees and left the US worker barren with the signing of trade agreements that stripped the US worker of living wages.

I look back now and I think the Democrats hated the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and all of the racial groups. Why? Because these were the groups targets for abortions and assisted suicide. Note how many abortion clinics are in non-white neighborhoods and how many more black children have been aborted than whites.

Over the years the Democrats have practiced segregation politics disguised as identity politics. By Segregating various population groups, convincing these same groups they are unequal and victims of societies prejudices, and if one elects a Democrat, these same groups will now gain equality. Such a myth.

#21 Comment By JonF On December 24, 2018 @ 1:25 pm

Maria, it was not “the government” that sent jobs out of the country. It was corporate CEOs. Whose ideology colonized the government during and after the Reagan years (though there never was a law against moving production anywhere- the end of the Cold War and new technologies is what made offshoring possible). It’s crucial to get this right. The Democrats may not be your friends on social issues, but it’s the GOP who played along lustily with Wall Street on the collapse of Working America, and even now are doing their best to rip healthcare and foodstamps from the unemployed.

#22 Comment By robert young On December 24, 2018 @ 2:30 pm

The secular humanists will attack Christian Catholics from every angle. Hirono is an embarrassment to Hawaii nei.our state has only one political party this we end up with political inbred like her. Shameful

#23 Comment By sjay On December 24, 2018 @ 3:41 pm

Her victory over her Hispanic Catholic opponent was razor thin

Hardly. It was in landslide territory.

[4]

#24 Comment By PeterK On December 24, 2018 @ 5:00 pm

Thomas Aquinas wrote “Mark my words: in 20 years there will be reeducation camps throughout the USA in order to make sure that dissenting citizens are woke. ”

we already have them. they are in our schools (pre-school, elementary, high school and college) much of the reeducation of adults is taking place within our corporate structure, classes on diversity, sexual harassment and more.
The entertainment sector regularly put forth material that reeducates the population in general. shows like Murphy Brown Part 2, Will and Grace, etc

#25 Comment By PAX On December 25, 2018 @ 12:18 am

Chuck C – On the margin 30 percent is big. Get a significant amount of that 30 percent to vote against her (Harris), who otherwise might have voted for her, and she could be toast. She has got a lot more issues than the Knights of Columbus to worry about. I would like to hear her give a spirited argument against making Americans take an oath to a foreign country before they can work and/or do business. But she will not.

#26 Comment By Santa Monican On December 25, 2018 @ 4:05 am

@sjay : “Hardly. It was in landslide territory.”

Yes. I confused her under-one-percent victory in the 2010 CA attorney general race against Cooley with the 2016 Senate primary landslide victory over Sanchez. Sorry, and thanks for the correction.

#27 Comment By JeffK On December 25, 2018 @ 7:22 am

@Roy Fassel says:
December 22, 2018 at 7:18 pm

“The separation of church and state is one of the primary reasons our republic has lasted as long as it has.”

That is the essence of the issue. This concept has served this country well for 250 years.

So much victimhood and hyperbole.

People with religious convictions, over the last 40 years or so, have used the church as an instrument to rally people around their own views of right and wrong. I suspect you could not be avidly and outwardly pro-abortion and be an active and influential member of an evangelical or catholic church.

Churches that are trying to change secular society into a society that reflects their beliefs are asking for trouble. It’s been going on for 40 years and many who disagree with them are sick of it. So you will get pushback. Lots of it.

Funny that what the religious considers to be persecution others consider pushback. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t approve of homosexual behavior, then don’t frolic with those of the same sex. And on and on.

Influence society through good deeds and inspiring sermons and actions. As it is now, many non-religous view the evangelicals and prosperity gospelists as busybodies and hypocrites that cannot even keep their own flock in control, yet they attempt to control others through force of law.

As the NRA would say, The Religious should just ‘stay in their lane’.

#28 Comment By John Blade Wiederspan On December 25, 2018 @ 5:59 pm

Unless and until the Democratic Party at least tries to reach out to white male Christian voters, there is a chance Trump will be re-elected. And I say this as a retired non-Christian male who finds Trump beyond disgust, both as a person and as a President. If Harris is the Democratic Party candidate to run for President, he will be re-elected. I put her in the same category as Congressman Louie Gomert.

#29 Comment By Mike Alexander On December 26, 2018 @ 6:17 am

TA askes “If an avowed atheist were nominated, would it be legitimate for a social conservative to ask if they could judge religious liberty cases fairly?”

I imagine there could be. It seems American atheist judges are a pretty scarce thing. Perusing this list of atheists in politics and the law on Wikipedia, I find judges listed for other countries, but not the US.

[5]

#30 Comment By Mike Alexander On December 26, 2018 @ 6:37 am

It looks likely that any atheists are simply banned Here’s some statistical background on 677 Federal Appellate Judges.

Over the history of the United States courts of appeals, five sects of religion account for almost seventy percent of all judges: Episcopalian (approximately 20.2%), Catholic (approximately 17.3%), Jewish (approximately 9.0%), Presbyterian (approximately 13.4%), and Methodist (approximately 8.7%). Researchers identified zero judges—out of 677—as identifying as Atheist, Agnostic, or unaffiliated.

It seems clear there have been plenty of precedents for excluding persons from serving as judges for religious reasons. In a country where high-level elected positions, including president, have been held by atheists, and upwards of 20% of the current population identifies as atheist/agnostic or “nones” it is near-impossible for less than 0.15% of judges have been in this class by random chance.

[6]

#31 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 26, 2018 @ 1:01 pm

Unless and until the Democratic Party at least tries to reach out to white male Christian voters

They won’t. A socialist ticket will. At least the working class ones. The financiers are hopeless, whether they approve of Trump or not.

People with religious convictions, over the last 40 years or so…

Ever hear of the Sabbatarian movement? We used to have mail delivery seven days a week, until those darn Christians insisted that postal workers get Sundays off. That was a lot more than 40 years ago.

#32 Comment By Harve On December 26, 2018 @ 4:11 pm

Maria says:

Maria, the opportunity cost of a full reply would be too high but everything you wrote is pretty much the way it didn’t happen. Mind if I ask how old you are? The reason I ask is that the world you describe in no way resembles the world I grew up in, e.g. liberals gave us the Wagner Act, Social Security, and Medicare – conservatives gave us Taft-Hartley and the granny starving Paul Ryan – check it out.

Santa Monican says:

“Harris comes from a Hindu-Baptist background and is married to a Jew.”

OK.

“Her victory over her Hispanic Catholic opponent…”

Loretta Sanchez was a blue dog and a good fit for her district – she defeated the odious Bob Dornan back in 1996 – but she was too conservative for the state as a whole. Her religion and ethnicity had nothing to do with anything. Harris was elected in 2016 so 2020 would be a free ride and win the nomination or not, if she does well, she’s young.

Siarlys Jenkins says:

“Hard as it may be for you to grasp, it is entirely possible for the constitution to specifically forbid discrimination based on race in assigning students to public schools, without mandating that a licensing process for a man and woman getting married be extended to various social patterns that are not a man and a woman getting married.”

Except that the SC held otherwise using the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. This is a useful link:

[7]

Your argument re; Loving is merely a rehash of the separate but equal arguments in Pace v. Alabama that were rejected in Loving, Perez, and Obergefell.

“Perez also surfaces frequently in efforts to rebut the argument that equal application of the prohibition of same-sex marriage to both sexes renders it constitutionally legitimate. Echoing the arguments of Alabama in Pace and Virginia in Loving, the state defenders in recent marriage cases have argued that, since all men are prevented from marrying men and all women are barred from marrying women, provisions banning civil marriage for same-sex couples do not violate state and federal equal protection guarantees. Advocates, however, point to Perez to make the case that the Constitution guarantees a more robust conception of equality than such arguments suggest.
In this connection, they cite Justice Traynor’s insight that the right to marriage in modem society must mean the right of an individual to select the “person of one’s choice” as a life partner.”

[8]

The decision that led to Prop. 8 was the CSC decision in “In Re Marriage Cases” which was influenced by the 1948 Perez decision also decided by the CSC the implications of which were broader then Loving. As usual California was well ahead of the curve.

There’s an interesting parallel with fair housing laws. In 1963 the California Legislature passed a fair housing law and in 1964 conservative elements put an initiative on the ballot to repeal it (sound familiar?) which passed overwhelmingly. The California Supreme Court and the USSC found it to be unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment. Conservatives predicted the end of the world (or at least a communist future); life went on.

Here’s a interesting quote:

“If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house he has a right to do so.”

Wonder who said that? (google knows)

“In politics, that is code for “the people didn’t vote the way I think they should have.”

Maybe. The pattern is a bit tedious. Interracial marriage, same sex marriage, transportation, housing, public accommodations, etc., it’s always the same. “We can’t have X for reasons and terrible things will happen if we get X. We get X. Nothing terrible happens.

“Strange as it may seem, “religion” is singled out by the constitution as something congress may not infringe”

May not “establish” is more accurate. “Exercise” and “establish” like any other terms of art are likely to need explication and may well change over time.

Noah172 says:

“Marriage licenses — who gets them, who doesn’t, what benefits accrue to their holders — are public acts. Reforming them required a public debate.”

There was (and is) a public debate from the 1980s on. Your side lost and continues to lose.

“Yeah, it’s not like California is home to the film and TV business, Big Tech, top universities, and scads of liberal activists. Oh, wait, it is…”

Running a successful campaign is a specialized talent with a short shelf life.

“And Karl Rove has such pull in California that he won the state twice for Bush. Oh, wait…”

Some body wanted Harris out and the Sanchez campaign likely didn’t have the skills to target the call I referenced. You don’t like Harris, fine, but her potential has been recognized for awhile on both sides by those not blinded by ideology.

“If people were freely choosing a protest-vote third-party candidate, while a much larger group who had voted for Clinton were going for Bush, maybe Gore was the problem.

Actually I specified Florida as the problem area due to a local issue the Gore campaign could have dealt with had they had a clue. Gore was hated by the media and he never figured out how to deal with that.

“Freely choosing” and Florida don’t really go together. Jeb Bush did a typical Republican voter purge that wrongly removed thousands of likely Dem voters and I’m sure all those Jews in Palm Beach County intended to vote for Pat Buchanan. Or as Pat said:

“When I took one look at that ballot on Election Night … it’s very easy for me to see how someone could have voted for me in the belief they voted for Al Gore.”

As far as third party voting goes, “freely” and “intellectually competent” don’t necessarily go together.

#33 Comment By Noah172 On December 26, 2018 @ 9:15 pm

Harve wrote:

There was (and is) a public debate from the 1980s on. Your side lost and continues to lose

Well, akshually, before 2012 pro-trad marriage referenda succeeded in states across the country (including Democratic states), and elected legislatures banned homosexual marriage in other states (including Democratic ones). Public opinion eventually shifted, but that was a fairly recent development. Had the Supreme Court not mandated a nationwide redefinition, most states would have eventually done it on their own, but there would still be some holdouts.

Running a successful campaign is a specialized talent with a short shelf life

Yeah, yeah, ten years ago a majority of California voters got bamboozled by [checks notes] a bunch of Mormons and the Knights of Columbus because the oh-so-limited campaign talent was focused on Assembly races rather than a high-profile ballot measure on a topic near and dear to the state’s two most powerful businesses (Hollywood and tech).

Actually I specified Florida as the problem area

Akshually, your comment mentioning Gore does not mention Florida. You said you spoke to someone at the LA convention about Nader, that’s it.

Gore lost a bunch of states which voted twice for the Clinton-Gore ticket, including his home state. Any one of those states would have given him the election. Gore lost several million voters who liked Clinton to Bush, not Nader, just like Hillary lost 6-7 million Obama voters to Trump. (Before you blah blah blah about Jill Stein, the Johnson and McMuffin votes were largely Republicans who couldn’t stomach Trump.)

I’m sure all those Jews in Palm Beach County intended to vote for Pat Buchanan

It may be true that most of those people made a mistake, but it was impossible to tell on individual ballots whether a given voter “meant” Gore or Buchanan. And tell me, which party controlled Palm Beach County, then and now, and was responsible for the ballot design? (Don’t you blame Jeb. Counties designed the ballots.)

#34 Comment By kingdomofgodflag.info On December 27, 2018 @ 11:05 am

“The inevitable question in those days was, would a Catholic in a position of power bow to Rome rather than to the United States if it came to a conflict – exactly the same question that has resurfaced in this case.”

The public prefers civil religion to governance by true Christianity, which was never intended for the governance of non-Christians (1 Cor 5:12). Anyone running for high political office must compromise Christian principles to win and hold office. Candidates seeking conformity to the image of Christ will be rejected by the electorate. Indeed, if Jesus himself came back incognito and ran for president as a third-party candidate, many Christians would not vote for him and his Sermon on the Mount platform that would not bring us national glory, but national humility. It is better for Christians to be ruled by non-Christians (as in Paul’s day) than for Christians to compromise their principles to rule.

A Christian campaign speech might sound something like this: “My highest priority is not the American people. It is God. Since loving our enemies is not compatible with killing them, on my first day in office as president I will call upon Congress for an amendment to abolish our armed forces and for legislation to abolish the CIA. If we are attacked, as we were on 9/11 and 12/7, we will remember that God said: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay’. For my part, I will lead our nation to do good to those who hate us, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who spitefully use us. To those who strike us on the one cheek, we offer the other also. We will not repay evil with evil. If conquered, we will set a godly example for our new rulers and overcome evil with good. In the meantime, our response to genocide in the world will be to provide transport of the despised to our country to remove them from their persecutors – in the tradition of those who hid Jews in their homes under Nazi occupation, at great personal risk, and without using lethal force. Of course, we will likewise bless our friends in Israel, but ultimately, Israel’s salvation lies in God, not America, and He will receive the glory, not America. Also on my first day in office, I will issue a formal apology on behalf of the American people to the British monarch for our sinful rebellion in 1776 and will rescind the July 4th holiday.”

#35 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 27, 2018 @ 11:34 am

Noah172 is speaking very sensibly today, and has his facts straight. I don’t often say that, but then, I envision a ticket well to the left of Bernie Sanders attracting all those working class Trump voters by REALLY sticking it to the elites, whether we’re talking about George Soros, Silicon Valley, Sheldon Adelman, or the Koch Brothers, putting most culture war issues on the back burner where they belong, and rolling over the entrenched political leadership. (Incidentally, some Silicon Valley executives are Republicans — the CEO of Oracle comes to mind. They vote their class interests without being distracted by the culture wars).

Except that the SC held otherwise using the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.

Harve, how many times have I explicitly stated in this very space that a Supreme Court ruling is enforceable until over-ruled by the Supreme Court itself, BUT that doesn’t muzzle our free speech right to critique what the justices did? My poster child for this point is Bowers v. Hardwick. Did Lambda Legal roll over, play dead, and issue press releases saying, the court has ruled, thus it is so? No, they began the long, arduous work of challenging the ruling in ways that could make it through even an adverse district court ruling and make their way back to the Supremes for a successful reconsideration. And rightly so, Bowers was wrongly decided, just as Obergefell was wrongly decided. The ultimate constitutional issues do not turn on whether any given constituency is pleased or displeased by the result.

Your argument re; Loving is merely a rehash of the separate but equal arguments in Pace v. Alabama

Sentimental hogwash. I’ve debunked the “Loving analogy” at great length here, but since you missed it all, or skipped over it as inconvenient, I’ll try to summarize it again.

There is no valid comparison between either side of the “marriage equality” argument and Virginia’s claim that its laws did not “discriminate” on the basis of race. Justice Stewart cut through Virginia’s defense of its miscegenation laws quite succinctly, by highlighting that employing race AS a criterion was unconstitutional, no matter what the alleged balance in the law’s impact might be.

Mr. Loving was a man. Mrs. Loving was a woman. Marriage laws were all about licensing, regulating and taxing the union of a man and a woman. Tossing “race” into the equation was ipso facto invalid. It was invidious in the same way that turning away a customer from a grocery store “because you’re gay and we don’t like your kind” is invidious. Pace is not only erroneous (although at the time Harve would have had to admit that whatever he preferred “the SC held otherwise”), but was clearly over-ruled by Loving, so its hardly relevant here.

The conceptual error in applying Loving to the line of cases culminating in Obergefell is that no law EVER made a marriage between two persons of the same sex a crime. The state of Virginia knew and acknowledged that Mr. and Mrs. Loving had entered into a marriage. That was their crime. The state insisted they either leave the state, OR dissolve their marriage. Divorce would have more or less expunged the crime, or brought them into compliance with the state law.

The very phrase “banned gay marriage” was, until the rash of DOMA amendments, a false construction. No legislature had “banned” anything. State laws simply provided a legal framework for what marriage had always been. Whatever might transpire between two men, or two women, simply wasn’t what marriage consisted of. Lawrence established a wholesome and long-overdue restraint on the exercise of the police powers of the state, but in no way disturbed state marriage laws.

The very construction that there were two classes, heterosexual and homosexual, was infirm. No law had contemplated excluding homosexuals, or forbidding homosexuals to marry, and certainly had not made it a criminal offense for a homosexual to marry a heterosexual, which would be necessary to really put the gay marriage cases on all fours with Loving.

The pattern is a bit tedious. Interracial marriage, same sex marriage, transportation, housing, public accommodations, etc., it’s always the same.

Your facile claim to “same” is where you go wrong. NO two issues are “the same.” Race is not the same issue as sex, which is not the same issue as sexual orientation. There are SOME real differences between men and women, which is why the law explicitly allowed for bathrooms to be segregated by sex while not allowing them to be segregated by race. The distinctions between the sexes are not as great as some in the past believed… e.g., women have proven to be competent doctors, lawyers, senators, etc. But there ARE real differences, and where those differences are functionally relevant, distinctions may be made. The first female members of the senate and congress agitated for establishment of women’s restrooms in the Capitol, for obvious reasons.

There is no rational basis to discriminate with regard to sexual orientation, EXCEPT when it comes to sex. Because otherwise, they do everything pretty much the same way as the rest of us. But “equal protection” does not extend to, if you want to engage in activity that is not licensed by the state, and then demand the same license. What’s different is different.

Its probably true that many states would by now have passed laws to license, regulate and tax same-sex couples, and issue them a civil marriage license. Its certainly true that there are many churches willing to bless same-sex unions. But there is no valid constitutional mandate, and the sloppy reasoning of Obergefell will somewhere down the road have unintended consequences, having nothing to do with gay marriage.

Gore was hated by the media…

Ah yes, the well known conservative Republican bias of the mainstream media. (Personally, I want a bumper sticker with the slogan “I don’t believe the liberal media” only with a side-bust of Lenin next to it.)

#36 Comment By Harve On December 27, 2018 @ 6:05 pm

“…I envision a ticket well to the left of Bernie Sanders attracting all those working class Trump voters by REALLY sticking it to the elites…”

And a pony! Comrade, that is right deviationism. By 2020 the cohort of working class white males (we need to be real!) supporting Trump will be reduced to hard core nativists and racists.

“… putting most culture war issues on the back burner where they belong…”

The problem of course is defining “culture war issues.”

“and rolling over the entrenched political leadership.”

And a pony.

“Ah yes, the well known conservative Republican bias of the mainstream media.”

SJ, sad to see you’ve bought into right wing gas lighting. A little research would clearly demonstrate two things:

1. The MSM clearly hated the Clintons and Gore, esp. the NYT. Check it out.

2. In general, the conservative strategy of “working the refs” has clearly worked. Check out the op-ed pages of the WP and the NYT. Check out the appearances on the Sunday morning shows.

You mean you haven’t noticed the style convention where if you are writing something negative about a Republican, you have to fine something “negative” about a Democrat no matter how inapt it might be?

Who would you rather have a beer with?

Take a look at an n-gram about coverage of the 2016 election. (If one claims the e-mails were important one is either being dishonest or one doesn’t understand the issue.)

I note you ignore Perez. Also it’s strange that a “Bolshevik” doesn’t get the class distinctions between abortion and same sex marriage. Estoppal. Your penultimate paragraph grants my point about the courts often being ahead of the general public. You appear not to realize that you keep making a Pace type argument re: SSM.

#37 Comment By Noah172 On December 27, 2018 @ 9:01 pm

Siarlys wrote:

I envision a ticket well to the left of Bernie Sanders attracting all those working class Trump voters by REALLY sticking it to the elites, whether we’re talking about George Soros, Silicon Valley, Sheldon Adelman, or the Koch Brothers

Such a person, if he won, would be in the same position as Trump, but likely worse:

bipartisan Congressional opposition to his agenda;

trouble staffing his administration with people ideologically committed, professionally competent, savvy with bureaucratic politicking, and able to win Senate confirmation;

stymied by courts and the bureaucracy;

and demonized by the media (if he were truly a threat to left-liberal zillionaires as well as the right-wing variety).

Our system does not bend to solitary saviors.

#38 Comment By Harve On December 28, 2018 @ 1:45 am

“Race is not the same issue as sex, which is not the same issue as sexual orientation.”

Which is not my point, which is that the processes by which it becomes clear (or at least arguable) that a particular group or class has been and is being disadvantaged under the current constitutional order.

For example, if a particular religious dispensation has lost hegemony while science no longer views something as disordered (or whatever) and the public is increasingly inclined to toleration (or at least indifference) then the stage is set for changes in the law and constitutional order.

That is how each of the categories made its long march to equality.

#39 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 28, 2018 @ 9:25 am

No Noah, our system does NOT bend to solitary saviors. But if such a candidate were positioned to win 55+ percent of the electorate, s/he would have to have committees in every state dedicated to that campaign — such a candidate is unlikely to have ready-made party apparatus to call upon. (In this limited respect, a bit like Ross Perot’s 1992 run). And the success of the campaign in the teeth of the liberal media would motivate some fraction of candidates for congress or the senate to mull over what shifts in position were likely to insure their re-election. Money talks… until enough voters are outraged enough to vote against the money.

Then, there are ways a clear-eyed candidate could appeal to various factions, and engage in honest horse-trading.

Staffing the administration would be a real question. But as I’ve mentioned before, I think presidents have made a huge mistake appointing governors, senators and congress critters to cabinet posts. Cabinet posts should be filled by people with a lifetime of experience in the field administered by a given department, not by people with a background in elective office holding. And among those with experience, there are those who would be committed to a set of policy priorities.

Roosevelt was often stymied by the courts, but that was in many respects a temporary set-back.

Anyway Noah are you giving up in despair? Is there no hope at all? Are you waiting for a violent revolution? Or what?

Comrade, that is right deviationism.

Harve, you can keep that rhetoric. You remind of when I still had some hope for communist theory to deliver a good outcome, and I noticed the despised social-democrats using the term “politically correct.” I thought, good, they can have it.

SJ, sad to see you’ve bought into right wing gas lighting.

I always tune out when someone uses the facile weasel phrase “gas lighting.” It seems to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and have no substantive content. After Engineer Scotty explained that it came from a second rate movie I had never heard of, I had even less respect for making it into “a thing.” I’ve lived long enough to be immune to most ad hominem attacks on anything by labeling the alleged source. If its true, its true, whether Karl Marx said it, or Adolf Hitler, or Al Gore. Doesn’t commit me to support any of the above categorically.

Who would you rather have a beer with?

I don’t drink beer. Hillary Clinton was better at having a beer with the boys than Barack Obama was. Guess which one was better presidential material?

Also it’s strange that a “Bolshevik” doesn’t get the class distinctions between abortion and same sex marriage.

Both are issues of non-class origin. It is entirely possible for either a socialist or a capitalist nation to ban abortion, or promote it, or allow it. Ditto for licensing, regulating and taxing same-sex couples. I’m not opposed to discussing issues of non-class origin. I think one of the gravest errors of the USSR style communist parties was to establish a party line on EVERYTHING. Put it up to a vote… either way a majority wants it to be, our economic engine can rumble on.

In the context of the US constitution, I agree that Roe v. Wade is a proper restraint on the police powers of the state. Its not their choice to make. But Justice Blackmun at no time insinuated that abortion is a good choice, a wise choice, a morally sustainable choice, a prudent choice, a medically indicated choice… he simply found that under the terms of our constitution, it is a choice for the individual woman concerned to make.

I’m not at all opposed to a state issuing civil marriage licenses to same sex couples. I also don’t see any constitutional mandate that a state take the slightest legal notice of same sex couples.

You appear not to realize that you keep making a Pace type argument re: SSM.

You think? Well, you would, wouldn’t you. You offer a classic example that it is impossible to convince a man of a fact when it is in their interest not to recognize it. Its only a Pace type argument if you insist that race and sexual orientation are exactly the same issue. Now, try explaining that to any Missionary Baptist Church, Church of God in Christ, AME Zion Church, or AME Church.

The whole point of my argument is that they are distinct and different issues, to be decided on their own merits, not by analogy. If you don’t want to do the hard work that entails, of course you’ll continue to make gratuitous ad hominem remarks instead.

#40 Comment By JonF On December 28, 2018 @ 2:04 pm

Noah, I have never seen such a gargantuan estimate of Obama to Trump votes. The estimayes I’ve seen have been much smaller, around 100K, which coupled with a decidedly larger number of people who did not vote at all for president, finding None of the Above to be the only viable choice, handily explains both the popular vote totals (Trump only slightly improved on Romney’s numbers in 2012) and Trump’s electoral college victory based on small vote shifts in three states.

#41 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 28, 2018 @ 7:10 pm

Harve, you don’t know beans about constitutional order. Many Supreme Court rulings have emphasized that there are areas of life that may not be legislated, even by electoral majorities. Its all over the school prayer cases, for instance. A constitutional provision is intended to remain intact whatever the ebbs and flows of transitory public opinion. That’s why amending the constitution is a much higher hurdle than merely enacting a statute.

#42 Comment By Noah172 On December 28, 2018 @ 8:49 pm

JonF wrote:

Noah, I have never seen such a gargantuan estimate of Obama to Trump votes

“Gargantuan” = 5% of the 2016 electorate. And I was going with the low end.

Just you because you haven’t seen something doesn’t mean it’s not there.

See here:

[9]

The estimayes I’ve seen have been much smaller, around 100K

Which doesn’t pass the laugh test. There are more than 100k Obama-Trump voters just in your native Michigan.

which coupled with a decidedly larger number of people who did not vote at all for president

Total 2016 Presidential electorate was 8 million larger than 2012. (You seem to be forgetting the third-party and write-in vote, which ballooned in ’16.) Percentage of eligible citizens voting was virtually unchanged. Percentage of registered voters participating was up slightly.

#43 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On December 29, 2018 @ 5:11 pm

In 2008, Barack Obama won with about 53 percent of the popular vote. In 2012, somewhat less. In 2016, no candidate won even half — although Clinton won a plurality, and Trump’s were better distributed to win the Electoral College. (That’s how we elect a president, for better or for worse.)

Effective leadership requires someone who can command the acquiesence, if not the enthusiastic support, of a good 55 percent of the electorate. A really thorough set of reforms requires 60 percent. To amend the constitution requires 2/3 of both house of congress and three fourths of the state legislatures.

Anyone serious about transformation, or even significant reform, will think about how to shoot for those numbers, not about “it is absolutely unacceptable that…” they don’t get exactly what they want. It can be done. It requires a lot of listening, processing, and a bit of humility in delivery.