Buchanan complained when the "wise Latina" (a Catholic) was nominated. His criticism is aimed at liberals, not just Jewish liberals. Why do you attack Buchanan, when you should be attacking Kagan? I wonder? Is this just another opportunity to smear a good man and an attempt to intimidate others who might have similar views into keeping silent about their concerns?
Given his persistant desire to name Jewish neoconservatives (and ignore Catholic ones)and his animosity to the Jewish State, it is hard not to draw an inference.
Blah, blah, blah. It is ironic that if you criticize those that are pushing an agenda which is harmful to this country's interests and if those pushing it happen to be majority Jewish, you will be labeled an anti-semite by the professional race/religion pimps. You are no better than Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Abe Foxman. Catholic neoconservatives like "Dollar" Bill Bennett where also a frequent target of his ire.
Out of the Catholics on the court (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Alito) who would you rather not have?
Kennedy and Sotomayor.
Kennedy is a Supreme Court justice that votes with the conservatives a majority of the time. He is acceptable although not perfect. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan are all totally unacceptable. All the Catholic justices were chosen by Republican presidents. All of the Jewish justices were chosen by Democrats. Criticism of the Democratic appointments is still acceptable here on Free Republic, regardless of their religious affiliation.
It was an assumptions given the rarity of Catholic Scots-Irish. 99 out of 100 times, I'd be correct.
You claimed to have supported Buchanan in the past and actually worked for his campaign. Pat has made mention of his heritage on several occasions and I would expect that someone working to get him elected would know this.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................