“Does Mr. Durbin understand that he sounds like the Southern Baptist ministers in 1960 who thought Jack Kennedy shouldn’t be President because he’d take orders from the pope?”

“Democrats like Dick Durbin have gone too far. Our Constitution is clear – under no circumstances can a religious test be used as a qualifier for public office, including a federal judgeship, but that didn’t stop Durbin from pushing the envelope. If Durbin wants to challenge Catholic orthodoxy, perhaps he should leave the Senate and head to the seminary.

“More importantly, what do Illinois Democrats like Chris Kennedy or J.B. Pritzker think? Did they think Durbin’s line of questioning was appropriate? Or do Kennedy and Pritzker think Durbin’s questioning brings us back to a dark time where public servants faced persecution for their religious affiliation?” – Illinois Republican Party Spokesman Aaron DeGroot

In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Senate Democrats, including Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein, grilled Amy Coney Barrett, a University of Notre Dame law professor and US Circuit Judge nominee, for her religious faith and how they think it might influence her interpretation of the law.

Their questioning was dark and ran afoul with the US Constitution’s ban on religious tests as a qualifier to hold public office.

Dick Durbin asked, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”

While Dianne Feinstein took it a step further, “Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that—you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

Durbin’s and Feinstein’s ridiculous questioning seemed to heavily imply that Barrett being a church-going, religious individual disqualified her from holding a Federal judgeship. Fortunately, their questioning drew a quick rebuke from lawmakers, faith leaders, and members of the press.

Here’s what some of them had to say:

From University of Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins:

…Professor Barrett has made it clear that she would “follow unflinchingly” all legal precedent and, in rare cases in which her conscience would not allow her to do so, she would recuse herself. I can assure you that she is a person of integrity who acts in accord with the principles she articulates.

It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge. I ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom “dogma lives loudly”—which is a condition we call faith. For the attempt to live such faith while one upholds the law should command respect, not evoke concern.

From the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board:

…Thus did California Sen. Dianne Feinstein pronounce on Wednesday that, by virtue of being a faithful Catholic, Amy Barrett, a respected law professor at Notre Dame, may have excluded herself from a federal judgeship. President Trump has nominated Ms. Barrett for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. But the Democratic obsession with Ms. Barrett’s religion transformed what should have been a routine Senate confirmation hearing into a tour of the mind of the modern secular left.

…David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator, says “the tenor of questions by Democrat Senators seemed designed more to challenge the ideas of Catholic orthodoxy—a subject more fitting for a theological debate than a Senate hearing.”

Proving Mr. Rivkin’s point. Sen. Dick Durbin jumped in to demand of Ms. Barrett: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Does Mr. Durbin understand that he sounds like the Southern Baptist ministers in 1960 who thought Jack Kennedy shouldn’t be President because he’d take orders from the pope?

This questioning is part of a broader effort on the left to disqualify people with strong religious views from the public square.

From the Chicago Tribune’s John Kass:

There’s something refreshingly honest about those Democrats revealing their bigotry in the halls of the United States Senate.

They did so in questioning Amy Coney Barrett, a law professor from Notre Dame, a Catholic and woman of impeccable academic credentials, who has been nominated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, a Catholic town.

Democratic U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein are applying a religious test to public office, something expressly forbidden by the Constitution. And by their questions to Barrett, they reveal themselves.

This evokes a line of inquiry from an earlier age, one asked of leftists during the Cold War but now directed by the political left at Americans of faith.

Democrats like Dick Durbin are taking us down a dark road, back to days where public servants were persecuted over their religious affiliation, saying their loyalty to our nation and our laws was in question.

In 1960, then presidential candidate and US Senator John F. Kennedy gave a speech to a group of Protestant ministers amid questions and accusations that his Catholic faith would preclude his ability to make decisions in the national interest, implying he’d take orders from the Pope and not the American people.

Some had falsely believed that Kennedy being Catholic would disqualify him from serving as President of the United States. They were wrong – Kennedy served our nation with honor and distinction.

What do Illinois Democrats like Chris Kennedy or J.B. Pritzker think of Dick Durbin’s questioning? Do Kennedy or Pritzker think it was appropriate? Or do Kennedy and Pritzker think Durbin’s questioning brings us back to a dark time where public servants faced persecution for their religious affiliation?

###