╌>

Sen. John Kennedy Grills Hampton Dellinger: 'Do You Believe in God?'

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  3 years ago  •  19 comments

By:   colbyhall (Mediaite)

Sen. John Kennedy Grills Hampton Dellinger: 'Do You Believe in God?'
Senator John Kennedy hectored DOJ nominee Hampton Dellinger over his religious beliefs during a Wednesday morning confirmation hearing.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



"Do you believe in God?"

Not a question typically asked in a Department of Justice confirmation hearing, particularly given the long-standing Congressional tradition of observing the Constitutional separation of church and state, but that didn't keep Senator John Kennedy from hectoring nominee Hampton Dellinger over his religious beliefs.

Dellinger is the former North Carolina deputy attorney general and chief legal counsel for the state's governor, Mike Easley who, according to Law.com, "if confirmed will advise DOJ leadership on policy matters and help vet judicial candidates—touted his fact-based approach to matters of law and policy and his ability to work across the aisle.

Despite Dellinger's future role to encourage bipartisanship, Senator Kennedy remains unconvinced, evidenced by his bringing up a tweet from 2019 in which the DOJ nominee wrote about abortion — stating there were some Republican women and a handful of Democrats who want government, not women, "to control women's bodies. But if there were no Republican men in elected office, there would be no abortion bans,'" Kennedy said, quoting from the tweet.

Kennedy then claimed the tweet suggested that anti-abortion Republicans only hold that stance because they are "misogynistic."

"Do you believe in God?" Kennedy asked. "Did it ever occur to you that some people may base their position on abortion on their faith?"

Dellinger replied "I sincerely appreciate that people have a different position on abortion than I do," adding, "I recognize the difference between someone saying something inartfully as a private citizen and working as a lawyer, and I think I've got a 30-year track record of being open-minded."

Senator Kennedy makes frequent appearances on cable news where he is known for his homespun folksiness, even though he studied at Oxford University and has been mocked for his past support of 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 years ago

a.     someone who "believes in God" can still think that anti-abortion positions are misogynistic. There is no mutual exclusion there. 

b.     asking a governmental nominee if they believe in God is not an appropriate question

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 years ago
asking a governmental nominee if they believe in God is not an appropriate question

Sounds like Senator John Kennedy needs to learn the Constitution.

Article VI Clause 3 of the Constitution

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.2  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 years ago

They keep pushing to outlaw abortion. Now I read this morning that about 250 republican congress people signed some kind of brief that is attached to the Supreme Court case that is from Mississippi. They literally state that RvW should be overturned as it ties state hands.

Is this Kennedy from the Kennedy klan? Or just have a similar name. He needs to be voted out of office if he thinks belief in God is some kind of guideline.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @1.2    3 years ago

I have never heard that he is related to the other Kennedys. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
2  charger 383    3 years ago

That is not an appropriate question 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1  Gsquared  replied to  charger 383 @2    3 years ago

I agree.  It is a completely inappropriate question.  Sometimes Kennedy acts like a total fool.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3  Tessylo    3 years ago

Kennedy is another know nothing idiot repuke

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4  Ed-NavDoc    3 years ago

Kennedy was totally out of line to ask a guest on like that.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
5  Veronica    3 years ago

Since when is that a prerequisite?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1  Gsquared  replied to  Veronica @5    3 years ago

Since never.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
5.1.1  Veronica  replied to  Gsquared @5.1    3 years ago

His question reminds me of some fellow travelers here on NT.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Ender  replied to  Veronica @5.1.1    3 years ago

Funny that God is only for what they want...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6  Sean Treacy    3 years ago

It was an inappropriate question, but calm the hysteria. If you actually bother with the context, it's clearly rhetorical.  He used  belief in God as a reason some people oppose abortion to counter the ignorant statement made by the nominee.  He was, inarguably, just making the point that there are other reasons than misogynic that people oppose abortion, with religion being one of them. 

Pretending he was requiring belief as a religious test  for his position is simply dishonest.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.1  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    3 years ago

Context is irrelevant. The question is inappropriate regardless.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1    3 years ago
Context is irrelevant.

Said every fanatic looking to burn someone for heresy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Guide
6.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    3 years ago

Either the question was appropriate or it was not. There's really no middle ground there. So again, context doesn't matter.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7  Ronin2    3 years ago

But Democrats have attacked people for their religious beliefs; that is OK I suppose?

Harris and Hirono had questioned one of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, Brian Buescher, about whether his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus — a Catholic organization with a history of anti-abortion activism — would infringe on his ability to be impartial.

“We must call this out for what it is — religious bigotry,” Gabbard wrote. “This is true not just when such prejudice is anti-Catholic, but also when it is anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, or anti-Protestant, or any other religion.”

It was an extraordinary maneuver for a presidential contender, one that undercut a future primary opponent in Harris as well as a member of her own state’s delegation.

Of course it was against a Republican so that makes it OK?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @7    3 years ago
Of course it was against a Republican so that makes it OK?

Not at all.  People opposed Buescher because he self describes as avidly pro life with explicit plans on how to undo Roe

"bit by bit".  He was and still is a poor choice for the federal bench.

Although Buescher has spent most of his career in private practice representing clients, he made his own vision of the law clear when he ran unsuccessfully to be his party’s nominee in the 2014 state attorney general election. That vision is one that does not include justice and equality for women.

During his campaign, he told the Nebraska Right to Life PAC that he opposed allowing any woman to have an abortion unless it was needed to save her own life. He also stated that he would:

support reversing or changing the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions so that elected legislative bodies (the State Legislatures and U.S. Congress) may once again protect unborn children by limiting and/or prohibiting abortion[.] i

In a campaign interview with the Nebraska Family Alliance, Buescher described himself as “an avidly pro-life person. And I will not compromise on that issue.” While he stated his position in the context of a campaign to be attorney general, it is clearly a statement of his beliefs in any context, not just as an elected official. Litigants seeking to vindicate their rights under Roe and its progeny would be justifiably skeptical that a Judge Buescher would be willing to “compromise” his strongly-expressed beliefs.

Indeed, during that same interview, Buescher explained how federal judges would play a role in the eventual reversal of Roe :

When regulating abortion, my view is this: We should regulate abortion as much as we possibly can. I’m in favor of banning abortion. Unfortunately, under the Roe v. Wade law, or case, and its prodigy [sic], that is not possible, to ban abortion right now. So what I believe we should do is we should assess the situation and try to enact laws that go as far as we can without being invalidated.

So in other words, we need to make sure our laws have a chance of being upheld by the courts. Because if not, we’re really kind of wasting our time because if it’s invalidated, then the law doesn’t ever get enacted. So what we do it we go after abortion bit by bit.”

And I think that Kennedy did not expect an answer, he was just asking a rhetorical question to make

the Dem Dellinger squirm. Parlor theatrics.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
8  Paula Bartholomew    3 years ago

There is a thing called the separation of church and state.  A person's religious beliefs are none of his fing business.  Him and his other ilk got all butt hurt when they were asked if they have been vaccinated saying none of your business, but this douche canoe demands to know someone's religious preference?

 
 

Who is online


Kavika
Just Jim NC TttH
arkpdx
evilone
George
JohnRussell


453 visitors