Thursday, January 09, 2014

Share on Google PlusTwitterFacebookLinkedInBufferFacebookCustom Sharing Tool

In a case involving the Little Sisters of the Poor, US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotamayor recently issued a temporary stay against the implementation of that DemocraticPartyCare provision that forces religious entities that consider it to be a grave sin, to pay for their employees’ birth control or to facilitate such payment.

I’m not a lawyer but I imagine that Supreme Court justices issue these sorts of stays all the time against quite a few laws for a variety of procedural reasons.  These justices may eventually find that these laws are entirely constitutional while nevertheless insisting that everything be done decently and in good legal order.
But that’s not how Jamie Stiehm saw it in Useless News & World Distort.  According to her, Sonia Sotamayor is not a leftist “wise Latina” but a Vatican Trojan horse:

Et tu, Justice Sonia Sotomayor? Really, we can’t trust you on women’s health and human rights? The lady from the Bronx just dropped the ball on American women and girls as surely as she did the sparkling ball at midnight on New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Or maybe she’s just a good Catholic girl.

And we’re off.  Get yourselves something good to drink, folks, because this is going to be a wild ride.

The Supreme Court is now best understood as the Extreme Court. One big reason why is that six out of nine Justices are Catholic.

What should Obama do about it?  Declare war on the Papal States or something?

Let’s be forthright about that. (The other three are Jewish.) Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama, is a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.

A hundy says Jamie’s an Episcopalian.  That issue-a-result-I-don’t-like-and-you’ve-put-your-religion-ahead-of-your-jurisprudence take is a dead giveaway.

In a stay order applying to an appeal by a Colorado nunnery, the Little Sisters of the Poor,

Kind of like saying that St. Peter’s is just another Roman parish church but do go on.

Justice Sotomayor undermined the new Affordable Care Act’s sensible policy on contraception. She blocked the most simple of rules – lenient rules – that required the Little Sisters to affirm their religious beliefs against making contraception available to its members. They objected to filling out a one-page form. What could be easier than nuns claiming they don’t believe in contraception?

Maybe because the United States government has absolutely no business issuing ANY rules about doctrine to any religious groups whatsoever because of that First Amendment thing, you simple-minded bucket of spit?

Sotomayor’s blow brings us to confront an uncomfortable reality. More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if “you” are female.

This explains why capital punishment in this country is rare to non-existent these days and why this country’s had universal health care for decades now.

This is not true of all Catholics – just look at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

An EWDKIY (an Episcopalian Who Doesn’t Know It Yet).  Then there’s the fact that Sotomayor’s a sex traitor.

But right now, the climate is so cold when it comes to defending our settled legal ground that Sotomayor’s stay is tantamount to selling out the sisterhood. And sisterhood is not as powerful as it used to be, ladies.

At the rate she’s going, Stiehm should be breaking out “greaser” pretty soon.

Catholics in high places of power have the most trouble, I’ve noticed, practicing the separation of church and state. The pugnacious Catholic Justice, Antonin Scalia, is the most aggressive offender on the Court, but not the only one. Of course, we can’t know for sure what Sotomayor was thinking, but it seems she has joined the ranks of the five Republican Catholic men on the John Roberts Court in showing a clear religious bias when it comes to women’s rights and liberties. We can no longer be silent about this. Thomas Jefferson, the principal champion of the separation between state and church, was thinking particularly of pernicious Rome in his writings. He deeply distrusted the narrowness of Vatican hegemony.

It says up at the top of the page that Jamie’s “a weekly Creators Syndicate columnist.”  And it’s facts like that one and paragraphs like the previous one that make me wonder about God sometimes.  Why should someone that bonecrushingly stupid have a syndicated column while I have to blow through my father’s inheritance just to pay rent, put food on the table and keep the heat going?

Here’s a historical question for you, Jamie.  Do you know what group basically motivated all of Jefferson’s various proposals for religious liberty, against official church establishment, for the seperation of church and state and all the rest of it?

I’ll give you a hint; amazingly, it wasn’t the Roman Catholics.  There weren’t that many of them around here back then.  It was the Anglicans, the ancestors of that pseudo-spiritual entity that’s currently run by a woman and that’s suing people out of their meeting houses because of what they believe.  Starts with an E, I think.

The seemingly innocent Little Sisters likely were likely not acting alone in their trouble-making.

Their big brothers, the meddlesome American Roman Catholic Archbishops are bound to be involved. They seek and wield tremendous power and influence in the political sphere.

Yeah, sure they do.  There should be a “Whore of Babylon” along any second now.

Big city mayors know their penchant for control all too well. Their principal target for years on end has been squelching women and girls – even when they should have focused on their own men and boys.

You do realize what you’re implying there, don’t you, Jamie?

In one stroke with ominous implications, there’s no such thing as Catholic justice or mercy for women on the Supreme Court, not even from a woman. The rock of Rome refuses to budge on women’s reproductive rights and the Supreme Court is getting good and ready to strike down Roe v. Wade, which became the law of the land 40 years ago.

Really?  I’ll take your word for it.  But exactly how a Supreme Court decision can become the “law of the land,” since the Supreme Court doesn’t pass laws but only rules on their constitutionality, completely escapes me.

The Anchoress has a far better evisceration of this idiocy than mine so be sure to check that out.  Thanks to Fuinseoig for the heads-up.

No comments: