Kirsten Gillibrand said the most disgusting things yesterday in an interview with the Des Moines Register on the subject of abortion.
In the interview Gillibrand actually suggested that we shouldn’t allow pro-life Christian judges on the bench in the same way we wouldn’t allow a racist judge on the bench.
“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable. Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic.”
She then finishes her thought with this doozy:
“Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America—I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”
Is she not listening to the words coming out of her mouth? By appointing pro-abortion judges she would be appointing the very people she claims we should not appoint. That is, “someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America”.
I’m telling you things have never been more backward in this world. They are actually equating pro-life Christian views of protecting life with HATE, and pro-abortion baby-murder views with LOVE. It’s insanity on steroids.
And then on top of it all Gillibrand defends her argument using the doctrine of “Separation of Church and State”.
“And we believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state. And all these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution and that’s what this is”
Absolute nonsense. Her version of the separation of church and state isn’t even in the Constitution. Liberals have been abusing that doctrine for ages. As a founding ideal it simply means to prevent the state from imposing its will on the citizen when it comes to religion. That’s why the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
But Gillibrand wants to change all of that and impose her will on judges via an unconstitutional religious test now: