Lizzie Scalia Heaps Well-Deserved Shame

on the impenitent Klansmen who edit what used to be US News and World Report for their amazingly scummy anti-Catholic bigotry.

Jamie Stiehm: You got Jefferson totally wrong. Now hear Lincoln:

Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it, “all men are created equal except negroes.” When the Know-nothings get control, it will read, “all men are created equal except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.” When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty–to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

  • http://www.subcreators.com/blog Lori Pieper

    Smashing Lincoln quote. Please, please give a source!??!!

    • Liam

      His 1855 letter to Joshua Speed.

    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

      I love it when Lincoln gets sarcastic. Such a powerful, dry wit.

  • wlinden

    http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.htm

    I was careful to check this, as Sherwood’s “Abe Lincoln in Illinois” transfers it to the Douglas debates and PCifies it by adding “and poor people”.

    • http://www.subcreators.com/blog Lori Pieper

      Thanks all!

  • Dave G.

    Impenitent Klansmen? Anti-Catholic bigotry? I don’t agree with the USN&WR piece, but it is the Catholic Bishops leading the Church to dig its heals in, so pointing out the Catholic identity of those objecting doesn’t appear to be bigotry. I would rather say a badge of pride and honor. Good that people know it’s because of our Catholic faith that we oppose this, and not just some passing fickleness.

    • AquinasMan

      It’s bigotry because a Catholic Supreme Court Justice provided the swing vote for ACA, along with Sotomayor, who also voted for it. So, looks like this dullard should be sending a giant thank you card to apostate Catholics everywhere, but instead she uses it as an opportunity to spew her adolescent progressive venom.

      This article was the journalistic equivalent of seeing if anyone’s interested in throwing a pogrom in the town square. There’s no silver lining to it.

    • Cypressclimber

      Ms. Steihm’s article is a very poor choice of a hill to die on.

      The article is simply an embarrassment. She chooses to stake out an absurd claim, easily falsified: that the Catholicism of the justices of the Supreme Court is guiding the Court’s collective decisions on various issues.

      Just one problem. This is something that can easily be verified. And if you care to check, you’ll find out how ridiculously false it is.

      Wikipedia helpfully lists, by year, every session of the Supreme Court since John Roberts–one of those “pernicious Catholics” (that’s a quote from Ms. Steihm) who as turned the High Court into the “Extreme Court” (another quote). And it also has a nifty chart showing how everyone voted.

      Yesterday I spent a couple of hours sorting through the cases, looking for instances where all the Catholics voted together, and all the rest–presumably not in thrall to “Vatican hegemony” (another howler from the columnist you are defending)–voted opposite.

      Now, there were some. One was Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, about bankruptcy and state sovereignty. Another was a wetlands case. And so it goes.

      Several were death penalty cases–in which the Catholic cabal were all on the side of the death penalty. Oops!

      But you don’t have to go to all that trouble. Just look at the announcement today that the U.S. Supreme Court–controlled by six Catholics!–will leave standing a lower court’s decision to strike down Arizona’s partial ban on abortion (i.e., after 20 weeks).

      On Ms. Steihm’s thesis, this can only be explained by the Catholic Church suddenly switching from being anti-abortion to being pro-abortion.

      Now, if Ms. Steihm wants to defend her thesis by explaining how pixies are involved, sometimes bewitching the justices, and sometimes not, that would be more coherent than what she actually offered in her op-ed.

      In sum: her contentions can’t be supported by any facts and are demonstrably contradicted by facts. That’s why it’s bigotry. Unless she simply wants to plead that she’s terribly stupid.

      • Cypressclimber

        Dave G: Upon further review, I realize your intent may not be to defend Ms. Steihm’s column, so I don’t mean to put you in that box. My point remains, however, in explaining why it’s entirely fair to label this column bigotry. The column isn’t just about how opponents of abortion or the HHS mandate are Catholics; it’s about how being Catholic means people can’t be trusted to uphold the law appropriately–i.e., Justice Sotomayor.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    I’m not sure Stiehm’s piece is even smart enough to qualify as bigotry. I can’t decide if it is shameful ignorance or willful obfuscation. But the views she expresses can only be believed by someone who completely ignores little things like facts about the members of the Supreme Court and their views.
    .
    Is her piece blatant Propaganda? Yeah. But it’s really poor, even by the standards of propaganda. Even a good liar knows to sprinkle a little truth in with the lies.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X