1 I’m in Boston to address a group of new admittees to the Massachusetts bar today.
2. Broadcast journalists were surprisingly restrained with Harvey, but the second major hurricane in less than two weeks is apparently too much for them, as it is for other climate change shills on social media and elsewhere (I’m looking at YOU, Jennifer Lawrence…which, I admit, isn’t all that unpleasant…)
Thus I am hearing (and reading) more and more claims that Hurricane Irma on top of Hurricane Harvey is the result of the nation’s failure to aggressively limit carbon emissions…as if two (or more) big storms in hurricane season is unprecedented, and didn’t, in fact, occur far more frequently when Al Gore was knee-high to a grasshopper. What does the cynical use of the 2017 storms as propaganda for the gullible and weak-minded tell us?
It tells us that the journalists don’t know beans about climate, weather and the science of global warming. It shows us that they are willing to mislead the public out of dishonesty, bias or incompetence, by spreading what amounts to junk science regarding an important policy issue. It tells us that they can’t resist using their position as reporters to boost what is for them a political agenda, for not one of them has first hand knowledge or genuine expertise regarding whether the earth is warming, how much, for how long, to what effect, and what will actually slow it down, and very, very few of them could explain a climate change model if their lives depended on it.
Finally, it tells us they are stupid. Every time it becomes obvious that the news media, elected officials and others are hyping this issue by using weather as an argument that climate change is occurring, they make skeptics more skeptical, and justly so. When advocates and activists resort to phony arguments and fake facts, it is fair to assume that they don’t have sufficiently persuasive actual facts, and that they cannot be trusted not to cheat to get their way.
2. It did not get the publicity and coverage it should have—Now don’t be suspicious and attribute this to conscious news manipulation; there was a lot going on last week, like the announcement of the new cast for “Dancing With The Stars”... which is one reason I missed it, but the confirmation hearing for Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett, a nominee to federal appeals court seat, demonstrated that progressive activists and some prominent Democrats are beginning to try to erode Freedom of Religion as well as the Freedom of Speech.
Barrett is a Roman Catholic , and a coalition of groups, including the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), have pushed Democrats to oppose her nomination because a good Catholic can’t be trusted to uphold abortion rights.
During the hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the panel, weilded a Marquette Law Review article that Barrett wrote in 1998 entitled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” In the article, Barrett argued that a Catholic trial judge who is a conscientious objector to the death penalty should recuse himself if asked to enter an order of execution against a convict.
“The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said of Barrett’s writings regarding the professional obligations of Catholic judges. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”
Translation: Abortion advocates will now argue that being a devout Catholic disqualifies a citizen for certain positions in law and government, because abortion rights are more important than the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious rights.
I must point out, as Barrett did, that the article in question was written when she was a law student, before she passed the bar, before she had professional experience, and before, practically speaking, she knew her ass from her elbow. In addition to that, law review articles are written to be provocative and prompt debate. That’s two reasons why Feinstein’s attack is unethical. Another is that the Senator either doesn’t know, has forgotten, or is intentionally pretending she doesn’t understand what legal ethics requires. It requires lawyers to put subordinate their personal views to the professional duties, and the duty of judges is to interpret what the law is, not what they wish it was. Feinstein’s argument means that Catholics and other religious legal professionals can’t or won’t perform their duties ethically. She is making, in essence, the same anti-Catholic accusation that the United States was supposed to have left in the ash heap of its history when John F. Kennedy confronted it in 1960.
Someone should also whisper in Feinstein’s ear that she and her party cannot argue that Catholics can’t be trusted to be dispassionate and objective judges while they shout “Bigot!” at those who wonder aloud how those who follow the Koran can become loyal, trustworthy, loyal Americans.