[UPDATE] – Senator Josh Hawley DESTROYS Trump judicial nominee over bigoted comparisons against Catholic family’s views on marriage

Today Senator Josh Hawley grilled a Trump judicial nominee for US district judge in Michigan, Michael Bogren, over comparisons he made between a Catholic family and the KKK.

After listening to this, one must wonder why Trump even nominated this guy:

Let me put this in context. Do you remember a case we posted on back in April about a Catholic family in Michigan who’d been disallowed from participating in the farmers market in East Lansing because they responded to a question on Facebook that they don’t allow same-sex weddings on their farm?



Michael Bogren is the attorney defending the City of East Lansing and the comments from Bogren which Hawley refers to in his questioning are comments Bogren made in the brief regarding this same Catholic family, the Tennes.

In the brief Bogren is absolutely making the comparison, in defense of the City of East Lansing, that this Catholic family refusing to allow gay marriages on their property is no different that the KKK using Christianity as their basis for refusing to allow interracial marriage or Muslims Imams arguing that women cannot drive automobiles. How absurd!

And then on top of that Bogren refused to admit to Hawley that he questioned the sincerity of the beliefs of the Tennes when saying that they applied the teachings of their faith “quite selectively”. After Hawley grilled him on this, Bogren finally just played dumb and claimed he didn’t understand the question.

I am so glad Hawley exposed Bogren for all of us to hear and I sincerely hope Trump pulls his nomination and sends him back to private practice before this goes any further.

UPDATE:

As I’ve been looking into this more, I now suspect that this nominee from Trump may just be something to appease Democrats so that he can continue to push his agenda through. This isn’t anything new, either. For decades Republicans have been making concessions to Democrats on district court judges in order to push through stronger constitutional judges to the appellate courts and the Supreme Court. If Bogren is in fact a token liberal judge, we should see Democrats vote en masse for him when his name comes up in the Senate.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

53 thoughts on “[UPDATE] – Senator Josh Hawley DESTROYS Trump judicial nominee over bigoted comparisons against Catholic family’s views on marriage

  1. All: Unfortunately, none of you know Mike, and therefore should be reticent to judge him. I have known him for 28 years, the last 22 of which have been as a partner in the same office. I have worked very closely with Mike.

    Let me start off by disclosing I am a lifelong practicing Catholic. I am a lector at my church, past President of our Parish Council, and past Grand Knight for two separate Knights of Columbus Councils. If I felt Mike had a bigoted bone in his body, I would not support him in any way.

    He hit the nail on the head when he told Hawley that he represents clients, not causes. He also, at the same time, was representing Bay View Chatauqua Group in Petoskey, Michigan, in a lawsuit which claimed that that organization’s bylaws discriminated against non Christians. Mike has, of course, been excoriated by ultra-liberal and atheist blogs for doing so. Mike operates with the zeal required by the Rules of Professional Conduct in representing his clients, and has not been censured, sanctioned, or grieved for his advocacy. Indeed, he is very highly thought of by his opponents and, more importantly, the Courts in which he has practices for his ethical approach and effectiveness.

    Having served for a federal judge for five years, and having practiced as a litigation attorney in federal courts for over 22 years, I can, without any reservation, state that Michael Bogren will make an exceptional federal judge and jurist. I reiterate – he is not a bigot as he has been represented to be.

  2. President Trump takes the advice of others when it comes to these appointees. There are far too many of them for him to handle the vetting process himself or get to know every one. Looks like he got bad advice.

    So far, I am not all that impressed with Kavanaugh either – but I have a feeling there was a deal there. Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy and I think that Kennedy may have agreed to retire as long as Kavanaugh was chosen to replace him. So far, he is voting with Roberts… and since the Obamacare fiasco – that is not promising. They depend too much on precedent – they are not originalists, like Thomas.

  3. Why give Democrats anything? Thanks to Democrats themselves Trump can force through anyone he wants. Screw them!

    1. Agreed. When Democrats control the Senate, do they ever let even a token conservative judge nominee go through? Of course not.

  4. All: Unfortunately, none of you know Mike, and therefore should be reticent to judge him. I have known him for 28 years, the last 22 of which have been as a partner in the same office. I have worked very closely with Mike.

    Let me start off by disclosing I am a lifelong practicing Catholic. I am a lector at my church, past President of our Parish Council, and past Grand Knight for two separate Knights of Columbus Councils. If I felt Mike had a bigoted bone in his body, I would not support him in any way.

    He hit the nail on the head when he told Hawley that he represents clients, not causes. He also, at the same time, was representing Bay View Chatauqua Group in Petoskey, Michigan, in a lawsuit which claimed that that organization’s bylaws discriminated against non Christians. Mike has, of course, been excoriated by ultra-liberal and atheist blogs for doing so. Mike operates with the zeal required by the Rules of Professional Conduct in representing his clients, and has not been censured, sanctioned, or grieved for his advocacy. Indeed, he is very highly thought of by his opponents and, more importantly, the Courts in which he has practices for his ethical approach and effectiveness.

    Having served for a federal judge for five years, and having practiced as a litigation attorney in federal courts for over 22 years, I can, without any reservation, state that Michael Bogren will make an exceptional federal judge and jurist. I reiterate – he is not a bigot as he has been represented to be.

  5. President Trump takes the advice of others when it comes to these appointees. There are far too many of them for him to handle the vetting process himself or get to know every one. Looks like he got bad advice.

    So far, I am not all that impressed with Kavanaugh either – but I have a feeling there was a deal there. Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy and I think that Kennedy may have agreed to retire as long as Kavanaugh was chosen to replace him. So far, he is voting with Roberts… and since the Obamacare fiasco – that is not promising. They depend too much on precedent – they are not originalists, like Thomas.

  6. Why give Democrats anything? Thanks to Democrats themselves Trump can force through anyone he wants. Screw them!

    1. Agreed. When Democrats control the Senate, do they ever let even a token conservative judge nominee go through? Of course not.

  7. why didn’t we just offer the Democrats 5 token district Judges for Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court to have avoided that terrible corrupted nomination process.

  8. A wasted nominee. Orange man should go scorched earth on every nominee from now on and no longer compromise with the Dimocrats on anything. And all aid to their districts and states should be SLOW WALKED while illegals are transported to them at a pace of 500 per week. Time to nuke this entire sshow.

  9. First, unless people have forgotten or are just conveniently ignoring the proposition, defense attorneys are supposed to vigorously defend their clients. I’ll remind people that the 2nd president of the United States, John Adams, successfully defended the British soldiers of the Boston Massacre.

    2nd, the analogy is apt. People that use religion as a crutch to support their views are fundamentally doing the same thing, whether it is to deny homosexual marriages or to promote racial segregation. Unfortunately both Hawley and those that applaud his questioning of Bogren are playing a game of emotions, not objective logic.

    It is well past time that the special dispensation for religions tossed to the dustbin of history to be replaced by similar freedoms for everyone. Namely the freedom to associate, or not, as their unquestioned desire. People should not be forced to perform marriages or allow marriages on their property as they personally desire. Not because of religious doctrine, but because of the universal natural right to freely associate or not.

    Thankfully John Adams lived, and served as President, in a time when there remained cool heads of objectivity because had he lived in contemporary times, and had successfully defended Taliban fighters, he wouldn’t have stood a chance in hell of ever achieving elected office much less passing through the juvenile senatorial inquisition of nominated office.

    1. First, people have forgotten or are ignoring that you’re responsible for what you do and what you say. Bogen apparently can stand to state such lies and then makes a case for them.

      Second, the comparison is a falsehood, and only those wholly ignorant of the major subject involved — Christianity — could ever state it. It is false because the Klan lied about what Christ teaches to support their racism. However, when a Catholic family states that they cannot, in good conscience, support homosexuality, they are accurately living out the teaching of Christianity.

      It is well past time for people ignorant of subjects to stop talking about them and exposing their ignorance of them.

    2. Yep….sounds about right.
      “those that applaud his questioning of Bogren are playing a game of emotions, not objective logic.”
      And that would also comprise of at least 2/3 of the electorate. Please folks….save the my team vs. your team tribalism bs for your favorite sports teams!

    3. Great, now do moslems. Those that live here could NEVER live in their home countries again due to the fact that they are NOT following the Koran to the letter and would be killed for heresy. Nice attempt though…

  10. Wow. Senator Hawley just ate that guy’s lunch, said, “that’s awful”, spit it out in his face, stole his snack pack, then walked up & slapped his mama in front of him for making a bad lunch.

    Trump better pull this nominee after that since I suspect alternative media like Shapiro, Crowder, Christensen & others are gonna make this issue front & center

  11. This is a perfect example of why it’s good to have a Devil’s Advocate, an individual who is supposed to research why someone should NOT be appointed.

  12. Hmmm….I think Bogren was trying to say that from a legal perspective they wouldn’t be any different, not that they aren’t any different morally.

    As far as I’m concerned people can do whatever they want on their own property. If the KKK had land and people wanted to get married on it, I really don’t care if they refuse to allow blacks to get married on it. My guess is that a black person wouldn’t want to get married there anyway. The only way they would is if they were trying to force it on the KKK to take on views they disagree with, which is exactly what the gay community is doing to Christians.

    If you don’t like the views of someone that allows people to get married on their property, go get married somewhere else instead of forcing your views on them.

    1. Yes he did say that explicitly in the video.

      But they aren’t really the same thing at all. This is ‘you must bake the cake’ all over again, saying that if they don’t use their property to allow gay marriages then they must suffer the consequences.

      This is wholly different from a racist organization using Christianity to justify their racism.

      1. Exactly Scoop. The comparison between the KKK using religion to be against inter-racial marriage and a Christian refusing to perform same sex marriage is ridiculous. There are absolutely NO proscriptions whatsoever in the Bible against people of different melanin content getting married. They are all of the human race. They are just different shades of brown. There IS though a definite proscription in the Bible by God Himself against homosexuality or any other sexual perversion. In other words, one (the former) is a matter of opinion and the other (the latter) is a spiritual matter of conscience where the adherent is being obedient to his God. The judge’s logic is fallacious and shows that he is the improper adjudicator for the job.

        1. What these racists do is use God’s law for the Israelite people, after they had come out of Egypt, for everyone else then and now. And it’s preposterous.

          The Israelite people had just spent 400 years worshipping every Egyptian god they could worship.

          When the One True God introduced himself to them and then made a marriage covenant with a willing Israelite people on Mount Sinai, he created boundaries for them so they would remain in their covenant. Because He knew what they’d just been through and knew they needed to be quarantined from the rest of the world.

          So He told them not to intermarry with the Canaanite people of the land which He was giving them. It was all about protecting them and their commitment to him, not about intermarriage per se.

          And really, this is essentially what Christ also meant when he told us not to be unequally yoked. It’s about protecting us and the covenant we’ve made with Him.

          It’s really that simple and there’s no way these racists can use this to justify their sin. Any true expert on the Holy Scriptures will tell you this.

      2. @the-right-scoop You’re missing my point. My comment about Bogren was just that I think he’s saying “legally” there’s no difference. I didn’t say that I agree with him.

        My opinion is that I don’t care what either of them do when it comes to people using their property. It’s their property. That doesn’t mean I agree with the KKK or disagree with the family that refused to allow gays to get married on their property. My opinion is based on them being allowed to determine who can use their property and who can’t, just like we have the power to tell one person to get off our property and the next they can come in.

        I’m not saying that Christians should be forced to bake cakes for anyone or that the Christians in question should be forced to allow gays to get married on their property.

        1. But if he’s willing to make this argument on behalf of a client, paired with his personal comments exposed by Hawley, he can’t be trusted as a judge.

  13. Well this is why we have nominees reviewed by the Senate. It’s hard to know everything. Hopefully this nomination will get pulled or it won’t make it through committee.

  14. Good for Hawley and it looks like Trump who has done pretty well on judicial nominations to date dropped the ball on this one.

  15. why didn’t we just offer the Democrats 5 token district Judges for Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court to have avoided that terrible corrupted nomination process.

  16. A wasted nominee. Orange man should go scorched earth on every nominee from now on and no longer compromise with the Dimocrats on anything. And all aid to their districts and states should be SLOW WALKED while illegals are transported to them at a pace of 500 per week. Time to nuke this entire sshow.

  17. First, unless people have forgotten or are just conveniently ignoring the proposition, defense attorneys are supposed to vigorously defend their clients. I’ll remind people that the 2nd president of the United States, John Adams, successfully defended the British soldiers of the Boston Massacre.

    2nd, the analogy is apt. People that use religion as a crutch to support their views are fundamentally doing the same thing, whether it is to deny homosexual marriages or to promote racial segregation. Unfortunately both Hawley and those that applaud his questioning of Bogren are playing a game of emotions, not objective logic.

    It is well past time that the special dispensation for religions tossed to the dustbin of history to be replaced by similar freedoms for everyone. Namely the freedom to associate, or not, as their unquestioned desire. People should not be forced to perform marriages or allow marriages on their property as they personally desire. Not because of religious doctrine, but because of the universal natural right to freely associate or not.

    Thankfully John Adams lived, and served as President, in a time when there remained cool heads of objectivity because had he lived in contemporary times, and had successfully defended Taliban fighters, he wouldn’t have stood a chance in hell of ever achieving elected office much less passing through the juvenile senatorial inquisition of nominated office.

    1. Yep….sounds about right.
      “those that applaud his questioning of Bogren are playing a game of emotions, not objective logic.”
      And that would also comprise of at least 2/3 of the electorate. Please folks….save the my team vs. your team tribalism bs for your favorite sports teams!

  18. Wow. Senator Hawley just ate that guy’s lunch, said, “that’s awful”, spit it out in his face, stole his snack pack, then walked up & slapped his mama in front of him for making a bad lunch.

    Trump better pull this nominee after that since I suspect alternative media like Shapiro, Crowder, Christensen & others are gonna make this issue front & center

  19. This is a perfect example of why it’s good to have a Devil’s Advocate, an individual who is supposed to research why someone should NOT be appointed.

  20. Hmmm….I think Bogren was trying to say that from a legal perspective they wouldn’t be any different, not that they aren’t any different morally.

    As far as I’m concerned people can do whatever they want on their own property. If the KKK had land and people wanted to get married on it, I really don’t care if they refuse to allow blacks to get married on it. My guess is that a black person wouldn’t want to get married there anyway. The only way they would is if they were trying to force it on the KKK to take on views they disagree with, which is exactly what the gay community is doing to Christians.

    If you don’t like the views of someone that allows people to get married on their property, go get married somewhere else instead of forcing your views on them.

    1. Yes he did say that explicitly in the video.

      But they aren’t really the same thing at all. This is ‘you must bake the cake’ all over again, saying that if they don’t use their property to allow gay marriages then they must suffer the consequences.

      This is wholly different from a racist organization using Christianity to justify their racism.

      1. @the-right-scoop You’re missing my point. My comment about Bogren was just that I think he’s saying “legally” there’s no difference. I didn’t say that I agree with him.

        My opinion is that I don’t care what either of them do when it comes to people using their property. It’s their property. That doesn’t mean I agree with the KKK or disagree with the family that refused to allow gays to get married on their property. My opinion is based on them being allowed to determine who can use their property and who can’t, just like we have the power to tell one person to get off our property and the next they can come in.

        I’m not saying that Christians should be forced to bake cakes for anyone or that the Christians in question should be forced to allow gays to get married on their property.

      2. Exactly Scoop. The comparison between the KKK using religion to be against inter-racial marriage and a Christian refusing to perform same sex marriage is ridiculous. There are absolutely NO proscriptions whatsoever in the Bible against people of different melanin content getting married. They are all of the human race. They are just different shades of brown. There IS though a definite proscription in the Bible by God Himself against homosexuality or any other sexual perversion. In other words, one (the former) is a matter of opinion and the other (the latter) is a spiritual matter of conscience where the adherent is being obedient to his God. The judge’s logic is fallacious and shows that he is the improper adjudicator for the job.

  21. Well this is why we have nominees reviewed by the Senate. It’s hard to know everything. Hopefully this nomination will get pulled or it won’t make it through committee.

  22. Good for Hawley and it looks like Trump who has done pretty well on judicial nominations to date dropped the ball on this one.

Comments are closed.