US News: Catholics have taken over the Supreme Court, or something

posted at 12:01 pm on January 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

It’s difficult to pick a place to start with Jamie Stiehm’s anti-Catholic diatribe yesterday that US News’ editors somehow decided to publish as part of their opinion section. It’s such a target-rich environment that it challenges the restrictions of fair use and copyright law, but so ludicrously entertaining that it rises to must-read level. Stiehm uses the issuance of a very temporary stay by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor to argue that Catholics have seized control of the Supreme Court — and really should be excluded from any position of power at all:

Et tu, Justice Sonia Sotomayor? Really, we can’t trust you on women’s health and human rights? The lady from the Bronx just dropped the ball on American women and girls as surely as she did the sparkling ball at midnight on New Year’s Eve in Times Square. Or maybe she’s just a good Catholic girl.

The Supreme Court is now best understood as the Extreme Court. One big reason why is that six out of nine Justices are Catholic. Let’s be forthright about that. (The other three are Jewish.) Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama, is a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.

Let’s test that hypothesis. How many key decisions have been made by the Supreme Court on a 6-3, Catholic/Jewish basis? After all, if Catholicism is the deciding factor in American jurisprudence, then that’s the kind of split we’d most often see, no? Either that or nothing but 9-0 decisions, since Catholics and Jews share a common basis for faith, philosophy, and moral law.

And what has Stiehm so steamed? Not an actual decision by Sotomayor, or even an opinion. Sotomayor issued a temporary stay in enforcing the HHS contraception mandate on Catholic nuns, who would otherwise have to facilitate birth-control insurance coverage or face ruinous fines. Apparently, even an interruption in this mandate rises to the level of gender treason and theocracy. Temporary injunctions in cases of this kind are hardly earth-shaking, nor do they mean much for the eventual disposition of the case — or even the injunction itself. Gabriel Malor e-mailed me this reminder:

Sotomayor is still considering the Little Sisters’ stay request. She put a temporary hold on the requirement that they complete the accommodation form and then asked for briefing from both parties. So, she could either refer the issue to the full Court or issue her own decision on the stay request. That could happen at any time. That’s not a decision on the merits, just a decision on whether the accommodation form requirement should be stayed pending appeal at the circuit court level.

Stiehm doesn’t allow facts and law to stop her rant, however. She declares, in laughable fashion, that theocracy is imposing religious rule while the mandate itself — which forces people to provide free birth control whether they want to do so or not — is somehow benign:

More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if “you” are female.

Like the nuns? Stiehm writes this without a hint of irony:

She blocked the most simple of rules – lenient rules – that required the Little Sisters to affirm their religious beliefs against making contraception available to its members.

Does Stiehm know that nuns are celibate and therefore don’t require birth control, free or otherwise? And that they clearly don’t want birth-control coverage? A mandate that requires nuns to sign a waiver that facilitates coverage of birth control is farcical on its face. Talk about imposing beliefs. The nuns (and other plaintiffs against the mandate with stronger cases) aren’t attempting to prevent employers from providing birth control; they’re trying to stop the government from forcing them to distribute and pay for it, directly or indirectly.

Stiehm leaps from there to argue that Catholics should be excluded from public life, or at the very least discouraged, implying that Catholics aren’t loyal Americans:

Catholics in high places of power have the most trouble, I’ve noticed, practicing the separation of church and state. The pugnacious Catholic Justice, Antonin Scalia, is the most aggressive offender on the Court, but not the only one. Of course, we can’t know for sure what Sotomayor was thinking, but it seems she has joined the ranks of the five Republican Catholic men on the John Roberts Court in showing a clear religious bias when it comes to women’s rights and liberties. We can no longer be silent about this. Thomas Jefferson, the principal champion of the separation between state and church, was thinking particularly of pernicious Rome in his writings. He deeply distrusted the narrowness of Vatican hegemony.

And who is at the vanguard of Vatican hegemony in the US? Stiehm can’t even be bothered to educate herself on that point:

The seemingly innocent Little Sisters likely were likely not acting alone in their trouble-making. Their big brothers, the meddlesome American Roman Catholic Archbishops are bound to be involved. They seek and wield tremendous power and influence in the political sphere.

I’m pretty sure that Stiehm can’t tell the difference between a bishop and an archbishop, but let’s put that aside for the moment. What, exactly, is the “American Roman Catholic Archbishops”? As an organization, it doesn’t exist. There is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which represents all of the Catholic dioceses in the US. And in answer to the question, the difference between a bishop and an archbishop is that the latter heads an archdiocese; Minneapolis-St. Paul is an archdiocese with an archbishop (and auxiliary bishops), while Duluth, New Ulm, Winona, St. Cloud, and Crookston are dioceses with bishops. Both have authority over their local “church.” Both are represented in the USCCB. Its current treasurer is the Bishop of Dallas, for example.

With that level of ignorance, Stiehm manages to stumble to her ultimate point — that Sotomayor is apparently part of a grand conspiracy to reverse Roe:

In one stroke with ominous implications, there’s no such thing as Catholic justice or mercy for women on the Supreme Court, not even from a woman. The rock of Rome refuses to budge on women’s reproductive rights and the Supreme Court is getting good and ready to strike down Roe v. Wade, which became the law of the land 40 years ago.

Well, it did … “in one stroke” from the Supreme Court. I’m not aware of a Roe-level challenge on the Supreme Court’s docket, either, although those Catholics might use anything to overturn it, even though they’ve passed numerous times on doing so. And I won’t be holding my breath for Sotomayor to vote to overturn it even when the opportunity does appear.

Anyway, be sure to read the whole thing. Not only is it a great return to Know-Nothingism on several levels, it’s also a pretty good indicator of the level of editorial judgment at US News. On that point, let’s give the floor to one of the commenters on the piece: “The author could have saved space by simply writing, “Who has two thumbs, knows nothing about preliminary injunctions, and is too lazy to do the research necessary not to look like a complete idiot?”"

Update: Like I said, there’s too much nonsense in Stiehm’s bigotry to categorically address all of it, but commenter Radjah Shelduck points out something that I did miss, and deserves more attention:

Yes, TJ, like a lot of the Framers, did “think of pernicious Rome” in his writings, but that was the Roman Empire they warned of, not the much later Vatican Rome. This author doesn’t seem to know the difference between the Rome of Christ’s time and that which came centuries later. Anyway, when Jefferson developed his ideas of separation of church and state he was far more troubled by the Anglican Church imposing its will in Virginia–not by the Catholics, who were a tiny minority there.

Update: More from my friend Deacon Greg Kandra at Patheos:

Rather than taking issue with one justice’s opinion, or attempting to dissect the legal thinking behind it, Stiehm takes the bigot’s way out: it’s because she’s Catholic, dammit, and you know how those Catholics are.

I find Jamie Stiehm’s essay objectionable and offensive—as a Catholic, but also as a journalist. It comes perilously close to hate speech, and betrays an attitude toward Catholicism that harkens back to the crude cartoons of Thomas Nast and the anti-Catholic nativism of the 19th century.

Stiehm should be ashamed.  So should U.S. News & World Report.

Indeed.

Update: Be sure to also read Michael Potemra and Michael Sean Winters.

Update: The Anchoress provides a thorough fisking as well.

Update: Thanks to Instapundit for linking this.

Update: More from my friend Father Z. The Catholic League is calling for the Creators Syndicate to terminate Stiehm, but I’m a little tired of the fire-’em demand. I’m more curious as to why anyone would have run this particular column, and US News should be made to answer that.

Update: Jeff Dunetz: “is she now claiming that Rush Limbaugh is a Catholic woman?”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Love that the leftists love, love, love the pope.

Schadenfreude on January 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Stiehm leaps from there to argue that Catholics should be excluded from public life, or at the very least discouraged, implying that Catholics aren’t loyal Americans:

That’s pretty much where the left has been going in the last 30 years. “No state endorsement of religion” is morphing into “only atheists are allowed to participate in politics.”

Doomberg on January 8, 2014 at 12:05 PM

How do they reconcile the fact that the left’s political God – JFK – was also Catholic?
Also, historically speaking, for many decades Catholics have voted heavily Democrat.

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 12:09 PM

The Papal Facepalm!

Priceless.

CurtZHP on January 8, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Let me see… who are the 6 Catholics? And we have 3 Jews? I would assume that the three Jews are in the liberal wing. Sad, really, that they are enabling Jewish hatred then by rubber-stamping liberal dogma.

But I’m down with expanding religious diversity on the Court. Let’s replace one of the Catholics, Sotomayer, with a nice LDS type. Like Mike Lee’s brother, who I had in Law School. That should satisfy this craving to not let the Catholic Church “run” the Supreme Court!

Fun fact: Reagan was strongly considering appointing the chief judge of the Utah Supreme Court to the Supreme Court, in the slot that became O’Conner. Man by the name of Dallin H. Oaks. Brilliant legal mind.

But the LDS church got to him first and he was called to be one of their leaders instead. Great for the church, but a great loss for the country. He would have been far better than O’Conner was, that is for sure.

Vanceone on January 8, 2014 at 12:12 PM

That’s pretty much where the left has been going in the last 30 years. “No state endorsement of religion” is morphing into “only atheists are allowed to participate in politics.”

Doomberg on January 8, 2014 at 12:05 PM

If you don’t pray to the Science god you should be banished to stupid camp! Religion is stupid! Praise science!
-anyone on the left.

Gatsu on January 8, 2014 at 12:18 PM

All those Latinos that the Democrats count on to vote for them are also Catholic and I can tell you that they are very devout. Many of the Latino parishes in Chicago actually walk from their local churches to a Marian shrine in suburban Chicago for the feast of Our Lady of Guadelupe. They did so this year in sub-zero weather.

Illinidiva on January 8, 2014 at 12:18 PM

There is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which represents all of the Catholic dioceses in the US.

Which is the irony of Stiehm’s anti-Catholic rants. Were it not for the contraception mandates in Obamacare, the USCCB would be Obamacare’s biggest cheerleaders. They have no problem with the socialism and wealth redistribution, just the birth control. Social justice, don’t you know.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2014 at 12:18 PM

As they say, the stupid is strong in this one. Yeah those mean Catholics are messing everything up. Let’s get some Muslims on the court, that’ll fix everything.

major dad on January 8, 2014 at 12:21 PM

How many key decisions have been made by the Supreme Court on a 6-3, Catholic/Jewish basis?

What?? Clarence Thomas is Jewish? Who knew????

WryTrvllr on January 8, 2014 at 12:21 PM

That didn’t last long.

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM

That’s pretty much where the left has been going in the last 30 years. “No state endorsement of religion” is morphing into “only atheists are allowed to participate in politics.”

Doomberg on January 8, 2014 at 12:05 PM

+1

gwelf on January 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM

All those Latinos that the Democrats count on to vote for them are also Catholic and I can tell you that they are very devout. Many of the Latino parishes in Chicago actually walk from their local churches to a Marian shrine in suburban Chicago for the feast of Our Lady of Guadelupe. They did so this year in sub-zero weather.

Illinidiva on January 8, 2014 at 12:18 PM

So devout they vote for a pro abortion, free contraception party.
Pfft.

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 12:23 PM

There is some thinking that taking birth control isn’t healthy and since these ladies don’t need it, why should the risk the chance?

Cindy Munford on January 8, 2014 at 12:23 PM

So how long until we see the signs again that say “Catholics need not apply”? As an Irish Catholic, I guess I can’t be trusted as we all have secret meetings to plot on taking over the world.

Mo_mac on January 8, 2014 at 12:23 PM

It’s difficult to pick a place to start with Jamie Stiehm’s anti-Catholic diatribe yesterday that US News’ editors somehow decided to publish as part of their opinion section.

It starts and ends with an inability to understand the law and the Constitution. The entire article is a rant that people just don’t bend the law to her will. She doesn’t need to be taken seriously. She is a kook of the highest order.

NotCoach on January 8, 2014 at 12:24 PM

As my Mother used to say: Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth (or start typing) and remove all doubt.

Ah, the things of which the left is so sure, but of which they haven’t a clue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/367790/ignorant-left-ongoing-series-kevin-d-williamson

h/t Instapundit.

questionmark on January 8, 2014 at 12:28 PM

So how long until we see the signs again that say “Catholics need not apply”? As an Irish Catholic, I guess I can’t be trusted as we all have secret meetings to plot on taking over the world.

Mo_mac on January 8, 2014 at 12:23 PM

I don’t know how secret the meeting are. Given as they are held in bars where ALL the world’s problems are solved in a matter of hours. ;0

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2014 at 12:28 PM

We can only hope that Catholics take over the SC. And the Holy See, too, while they’re at it.

whatcat on January 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM

I don’t know how secret the meeting are. Given as they are held in bars where ALL the world’s problems are solved in a matter of hours. ;0

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2014 at 12:28 PM

So THAT’S what goes on in all those Irish bars – like Murphy’s Tavern, Finnegan’s Cocktails & Dreams, Jack Quinn’s Irish Pub, etc etc….

“A true Irishman is not really drunk so long as he can hold onto a blade of grass and not fall off the face of the earth.”

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 12:32 PM

One of the fundamental rules of liberalism is that there can be no freedom until everything is free. Thus having to pay for contraception yourself is akin to not being allowed to use contraception.

The corollary to this rule is that if you are unwilling to pay for my whims and desires, you are suppressing my freedom.

PackerBronco on January 8, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Maybe if catholic priests had any backbone this country would be better off. Deny communion to fornicators.

Mormontheman on January 8, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Thomas Jefferson, the principal champion of the separation between state and church, was thinking particularly of pernicious Rome in his writings. He deeply distrusted the narrowness of Vatican hegemony.

Anybody else catch this bit of nonsense? Yes, TJ, like a lot of the Framers, did “think of pernicious Rome” in his writings, but that was the Roman Empire they warned of, not the much later Vatican Rome. This author doesn’t seem to know the difference between the Rome of Christ’s time and that which came centuries later. Anyway, when Jefferson developed his ideas of separation of church and state he was far more troubled by the Anglican Church imposing its will in Virginia–not by the Catholics, who were a tiny minority there.

radjah shelduck on January 8, 2014 at 12:40 PM

The lady from the Bronx just dropped the ball on American women and girls as surely as she did the sparkling ball at midnight on New Year’s Eve in Times Square.

So now women have the right to force businesses to pay for their birth control? Really?

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 8, 2014 at 12:40 PM

More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if “you” are female.

Jews don’t proselytize outside of the Jewish community, so I don’t know what religious imposition she’s speaking about.

But this is nothing new.

When a wave of secular liberalism went through Israel, any resistance to extreme liberalism was (and still is) painted as “religious imposition” when in reality it is defense against fundamentalist liberal imposition.

Ben Hur on January 8, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Nice touch with a Benedict face palm (or was it there was no Francis face palm available).

Mr. Joe on January 8, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Statists start from the ignorant proposition that any limit on government action is an undue burden requiring extraordinary scrutiny. History, our American founders and common sense starts from exactly the opposite proposition.

What amazes me is any newspaper would publish ill-informed garbage like this. This is so misbegotten a perspective and so disrespectfulof law and deeply ignorant of our country’s traditions that it should have been rejected outright as the shallow piece of stupidity it is. The newspaper itself looks bad for publishing it.

MTF on January 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Illinidiva on January 8, 2014 at 12:18 PM

So devout they vote for a pro abortion, free contraception party.
Pfft.

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 12:23 PM

And so devout that in Albuquerque they abundantly voted for abortion, to the very end…viable killings…then danced on the street on the night they won.

Schadenfreude on January 8, 2014 at 12:52 PM

How do they reconcile the fact that the left’s political God – JFK – was also Catholic?
Also, historically speaking, for many decades Catholics have voted heavily Democrat.

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Let’s not forget that the catholic church is the most “gay-friendly” church out there. So gay friendly, in fact, that they have covered for gay priest that molest little boys.

NOTE: I am not saying that all, or even a large percentage, of gay people are child molestors. However, if you are a man and you molest boys you are in fact gay.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 8, 2014 at 12:56 PM

More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if “you” are female.

Just for fun, you skipped Jehovah’s Witnesses, who keep leaving literature, and, of course, Mulsims, who keep burning it.

So Catholic proselytizing is now a capital offense? Little sensitive there aren’t we?

WryTrvllr on January 8, 2014 at 12:58 PM

AllahsNippleHair on January 8, 2014 at 12:23 PM

And so devout that in Albuquerque they abundantly voted for abortion, to the very end…viable killings…then danced on the street on the night they won.

Schadenfreude on January 8, 2014 at 12:52 PM

I saw a lot of hypocrisy growing up in the Catholic church.
Good old Nanzi Pelosi is another fine example, along with the entire Kennedy clan…..

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Do ya think US SNooz would have printed the article had the word “Catholic” been replaced by “black” or “ghey”?

OccamsRazor on January 8, 2014 at 1:01 PM

US News: Catholics have taken over the Supreme Court, or something

This is actually a swipe at the eternally phantom enemy, Dominionists.

nobar on January 8, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Do ya think US SNooz would have printed the article had the word “Catholic” been replaced by “black” or “ghey”?

OccamsRazor on January 8, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Of course not – those people can do no wrong.
But given the history of Catholic politicians (Kennedys, Pelosi, etc) I’m slightly surprised the leftist media (redundancy alert) would publish a hit piece on Catholics. Free contraceptives for all (even if they don’t want it) must be a REALLY big deal at the Snooze.

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Religion aside, let me get this straight. The position resulting from Sotomayer’s stay is that no one is precluded from any action and no one is required to take any action. That’s some kind of tyranny? Really?

trubble on January 8, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Just for fun, you skipped Jehovah’s Witnesses, who keep leaving literature, and, of course, Mulsims, who keep burning it chopping off heads, throwing acid on girls and blowing people up.

So Catholic proselytizing is now a capital offense? Little sensitive there aren’t we?

WryTrvllr on January 8, 2014 at 12:58 PM

FIFY

OccamsRazor on January 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM

So Catholic proselytizing is now a capital offense? Little sensitive there aren’t we?

WryTrvllr on January 8, 2014 at 12:58 PM

I have to say, I don’t recall ever having any Catholics come to my door wanting to “spread the word”.
I’ve had a lot of Mormon kids, a few Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a couple of women from some unspecified Christian evangelist church knock on my door though.

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 1:13 PM

That article has to be from The Onion…nobody could be that stoopit.

JetBoy on January 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM

testing

CoffeeLover on January 8, 2014 at 1:16 PM

As for those Latinos who voted pro-abortion and for dems, free handouts beat moral courage and faith everytime.

major dad on January 8, 2014 at 1:16 PM

FIFY

OccamsRazor on January 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Very good fix.
Unlike the “peaceful” Muslims, at least the various Christian denominations have not been killing people over their religion, at least not for the last couple hundred years…..

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 1:17 PM

That article has to be from The Onion…nobody could be that stoopit.

JetBoy on January 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM

Possible, but – given what we’ve seen from the left, do you really believe they can’t be that stoopit?

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM

People like the author of this uninformed and bigoted articl…er propaganda piece are why the Founders put in both the First AND Second Amendments as the first and second amendments.

jukin3 on January 8, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Stiehm leaps from there to argue that Catholics should be excluded from public life, or at the very least discouraged, implying that Catholics aren’t loyal Americans

There is a very real reason why Obama refers to the protections in the First Amendment as “freedom of worship” and not religion. Worship can, and would, be limited to the goings on behind church doors on Sunday mornings. Freedom of religion is what allows these nuns the freedom to not pay for birth control or abortion inducing drugs to employees (or insurance that does the same). To provide someone with those contraceptives (for the purposes of contraception and abortion), violates their right to free expression of religion.

No employer is saying their employees cannot get birth control, so the “denying access” lie is just that: a LIE. And it should be called such. My employer doesn’t buy my food, so are they “denying access” to that filet mignon I want for dinner? No. They give me my wages and I am free to spend that money as I wish. And both the pill and condoms are less expensive than filet mignon, or a car payment, or a cell phone bill.
E
Liberals have long hated the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception and abortion. Only fools would fail to see this is the state attempting to ramrod their beliefs on an institution they loathe (apparently the separation of church and state thing she’s so breathless about is a one-way street).

And that letter? That “piece of paper” the nuns refuse to sign? It’s not just a form, it basically says if they don’t provide contraception, their insurance plans (that they pay for) will. It in no way affirms their objections or preserves their rights.

And if you work for the nuns (do they even have employees who aren’t nuns? This isn’t clear to me, not that it matters, my view still stands), or Hobby Lobby, or any employer that doesn’t provide you the benefits you want, why continue to work there?

(I think that goes to the left’s mentality that you’re stuck in whatever job you have, hence the push for “living wage” for McDonalds workers).

This piece would make Jack Chick proud. Those of us with brains? Not so much.

englishqueen01 on January 8, 2014 at 1:19 PM

I fail to see any difference between her views and Bill Maher’s views when it comes to Catholics.

JimLennon on January 8, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Possible, but – given what we’ve seen from the left, do you really believe they can’t be that stoopit?

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I think what most surprises me is that US News actually printed that garbage…I’ve always considered that organization to be centrist. The article isn’t well-written and is full of blatantly idiotic lies.

JetBoy on January 8, 2014 at 1:33 PM

I think what most surprises me is that US News actually printed that garbage…I’ve always considered that organization to be centrist.

JetBoy on January 8, 2014 at 1:33 PM

For decades in my family, the rag has been called “Useless News and World Distort”

JimLennon on January 8, 2014 at 1:39 PM

There is no bottom to the stupid hole. People keep digging and digging and…

Kraken on January 8, 2014 at 1:39 PM

The Supreme Court is now best understood as the Extreme Court. One big reason why is that six out of nine Justices are Catholic. Let’s be forthright about that. (The other three are Jewish.) Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama, is a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.

Not often you get this stirred up over progressives acting like progressives.

6 out of 9 Justices are Catholic, and 3 are Jewish? That is a little concerning, since, as we all know by now, diversity is our strength.

In fact, the Air Force just made a big pronouncement on “Dignity and Respect” that says exactly that: Diversity is our strength.

It’s almost like some people don’t believe the platitudes they mouth.

At any rate, this is more than bigotry. This is pure unhinged hatred of anyone who stands in the way of a progressive dream. Makes one wonder if the writer is a homosexual activist, since they are the ones who seem the most exercised and –literally — hateful on the subject.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 8, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Stiehm leaps from there to argue that Catholics should be excluded from public life, or at the very least discouraged, implying that Catholics aren’t loyal Americans:

Perhaps Stiehm would prefer Catholics to wear crucifix emblems on their persons, live in specific areas of town and be prohibited from owning businesses? Sound familiar?

Stiehm: “We can no longer be silent about this. Thomas Jefferson, the principal champion of the separation between state and church,…”

Yeah but that pesky First Amendment (“…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion];…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…“) keeps getting in the way. Funny how Jefferson supported the First Amendment.

Kingfisher on January 8, 2014 at 1:45 PM

One again, another stupid-a$$ liberal assumes what the nuns want. Can she show any evidence that she actually asked them for their opinions?

Kingfisher on January 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Ah. Failed to notice the title of the original article.

The Catholic Supreme Court’s War on Women

So the writer is not a homosexual activist, but more likely some sort of radical feminist. You know, the OTHER fanatical group with no sense of humor and a constant simmering rage.

That may not be entirely fair, though. Homosexual activists may actually have a sense of humor.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 8, 2014 at 2:00 PM

I was going to make a joke about there being Papists under her bed, but let’s be honest, at 52, single, and with that face there ain’t nobody near her bed.

Spade on January 8, 2014 at 2:19 PM

I was going to make a joke about there being Papists under her bed, but let’s be honest, at 52, single, and with that face there ain’t nobody near her bed.

Spade on January 8, 2014 at 2:19 PM

I think you may have stumbled onto why she is such a crank. And I mean that in every way imaginable.

NotCoach on January 8, 2014 at 2:32 PM

the Supreme Court is getting good and ready to strike down Roe v. Wade, which became the law of the land 40 years ago.

What an unintentionally ironic comment. I’m sure it completely escaped her that her citation is of a Supreme Court case, not a Congressional Act. In other words, somehow the Supreme Court has a right to make something law, but does not have a right to strike it down.

RonF on January 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM

US News needs to go back and read the Constitution.

sadatoni on January 8, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Leftists won’t be satisfied until practicing Catholicism in America becomes illegal.

The church has seen many Nero’s in her long history…

workingclass artist on January 8, 2014 at 2:45 PM

the Supreme Court is getting good and ready to strike down Roe v. Wade, which became the law of the land 40 years ago.

I’ll be over here waiting for liberals to treat Heller v DC with the same.

Spade on January 8, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Leftists won’t be satisfied until practicing Catholicism Christianity in America becomes illegal.

workingclass artist on January 8, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
I don’t believe they’re stopping at “Catholicism.”

listens2glenn on January 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Leftists won’t be satisfied until practicing CatholicismChristianity monotheists of any kind (other than Islamists) in America becomes illegal.

workingclass artist on January 8, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
I don’t believe they’re stopping at “Catholicism.”

listens2glenn on January 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

My collie says:

There. FIFY. We are now asymptotically approaching the the leftists’ true agenda.

And so, the world-wide caliphate is where we are headed — because if that is what it takes to get the world government that they require, they are all too happy to “go there”.

CyberCipher on January 8, 2014 at 3:57 PM

With columns like this, it’s no wonder that U.S. News has been so successful that it was able to … uh … stop publishing its print edition three years ago.

J.S.K. on January 8, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Big surprise. Secularists are all haters, all the time.

Carnac on January 8, 2014 at 4:04 PM

All those Latinos that the Democrats count on to vote for them are also Catholic and I can tell you that they are very devout. Many of the Latino parishes in Chicago actually walk from their local churches to a Marian shrine in suburban Chicago for the feast of Our Lady of Guadelupe. They did so this year in sub-zero weather.
Illinidiva on January 8, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Most aren’t “very devout.” Not even close.

bluegill on January 8, 2014 at 4:08 PM

When I met Ms. Stiehm in the early ’90′s, she struck me as an angry, fragile, uptight, possibly bulimic, man-hater. Seems the anger has metastasized over the last 20 years.

ktrush on January 8, 2014 at 4:27 PM

And so, the world-wide caliphate is where we are headed — because if that is what it takes to get the world government that they require, they are all too happy to “go there”.

CyberCipher on January 8, 2014 at 3:57 PM

.
What other montheistic religions are there?

listens2glenn on January 8, 2014 at 4:28 PM

What other monotheistic religions are there?

listens2glenn on January 8, 2014 at 4:28 PM

.
s i g h

listens2glenn on January 8, 2014 at 4:29 PM

uhhh… there is only one Jewish justice,Kagan on the court not nine.

skatz51 on January 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Stiehm’s complaint is not just against Catholics, it’s against anyone who deviates from the feminazi ideology at all.

She is of the deluded elite who believe they are morally superior and right all the time, and that Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and Catholics are all evil because they refuse to capitulate to the rule of the elite.

Adjoran on January 8, 2014 at 5:06 PM

What other montheistic religions are there?

listens2glenn on January 8, 2014 at 4:28 PM

The leftists are determined to eliminate Judaism — as well as Christianity. There may be other monotheistic religions that they wouldn’t hesitate to destroy. But only Islam has the same goal as the leftists, viz. one world government.

CyberCipher on January 8, 2014 at 5:13 PM

uhhh… there is only one Jewish justice,Kagan on the court not nine.

skatz51 on January 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

According to Wikipedia (I know, I know), Ginsburg and Breyer are Jewish.

Ward Cleaver on January 8, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Possible, but – given what we’ve seen from the left, do you really believe they can’t be that stoopit?

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I think what most surprises me is that US News actually printed that garbage…I’ve always considered that organization to be centrist. The article isn’t well-written and is full of blatantly idiotic lies.

JetBoy on January 8, 2014 at 1:33 PM

.
They printed it because in the self-referential, isolated, lefty hive mentality of those who populate the media, they saw nothing untoward about it’s content.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 8, 2014 at 6:27 PM

It should be noted that this lady is mentally ill. Bipolar.

So this article is the ravings of a lunatic

Spade on January 8, 2014 at 6:41 PM

The Catholic League is calling for the Creators Syndicate to terminate Stiehm, but I’m a little tired of the fire-’em demand. I’m more curious as to why anyone would have run this particular column…

Exactly. Did the copy editor call in sick that day? But OK…it’s an “opinion” piece. Still…it’s so far beyond rational opinion that it’s more an attack piece based on what I can only call “hate”.

Replace “Catholic” with “Jew”, and it makes Helen Thomas’ infamous comments seem tame.

JetBoy on January 8, 2014 at 7:39 PM

How exactly did making everyone pay for birth control for women that want it become part of “Women’s Rights”?

Count to 10 on January 8, 2014 at 7:49 PM

One more leftist Dem feminist who only wants HER way and HER thoughts. Her lack of a basic education is absolutely pathetic. Then again, she bought the “julia” mantra that she knows it all.

MN J on January 8, 2014 at 11:29 PM

The Jooooos
The Fisheaters!

thebrokenrattle on January 9, 2014 at 12:32 AM

US News still exists?

Ronnie on January 9, 2014 at 2:04 AM

A mandate that requires nuns to sign a waiver that facilitates coverage of birth control is farcical on its face. Talk about imposing beliefs. The nuns (and other plaintiffs against the mandate with stronger cases) aren’t attempting to prevent employers from providing birth control; they’re trying to stop the government from forcing them to distribute and pay for it, directly or indirectly.

That is the essence of the issue, right there.

And that essence is lost on the Left, who have presumed themselves to “impose their beliefs” on the US population via Obamacare AND how Obamacare is configured.

The article/complaints read to me like someone who was looking for an excuse to bash Catholicism. So the writer has wrapped her bashing up in a variety of things, all of which equal “bashing Catholicism”.

Reality is individual conscience. That’s central to Catholicism as it is also to daily life. The Left loathes individual conscience, at least highly disrespects it based upon the litany of statements by the Left I’ve read over the years. All their complaints seem to reduce down to that: they loathe individual conscience and demand “group/hive mind” subscription.

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 4:49 AM

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 4:49 AM

And throwing in the Supreme Court as issue is a Leftwinger writer’s tool equivalent of banging a big drum in a small room.

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 4:51 AM

Stiehm leaps from there to argue that Catholics should be excluded from public life, or at the very least discouraged, implying that Catholics aren’t loyal Americans:

Left’s demand isn’t limited to ONLY Catholics, however — though we are their hardest hit target, I agree.

Leftmedia is labeling people throughout reports in Leftmedia negatively as “Christian” — when an issue is deemed offensive to the Left’s idea of who-what-how-why, Leftmedia is couching whomever/whatever is being discussed as to The Other (to the Left, whoever/whatever is their protagonist/protagonism), they are frequently assigning “who is Christian, so that explains that” denigration-type descriptor.

I’ve seen several statements even this morning in Leftmedia, quoting Leftists and Left activists of a variety of sorts/associations, who refer in a negative-stereotypical manner to “Christians”…

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 4:56 AM

How exactly did making everyone pay for birth control for women that want it become part of “Women’s Rights”?

Count to 10 on January 8, 2014 at 7:49 PM

By using government to force (“require” is the formal word for it) individuals to pay for birth control/abortion assigns the population to PARTICIPATION in those issues. It’s a way for the Left to secure “approval” of their demands by feigned-consent.

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 4:58 AM

uhhh… there is only one Jewish justice,Kagan on the court not nine.

skatz51 on January 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

No. In addition to Kagan, who is Jewish, there are also Ginsberg and Breyer who are.

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 5:00 AM

uhhh… there is only one Jewish justice,Kagan on the court not nine.

skatz51 on January 8, 2014 at 4:41 PM

No. In addition to Kagan, who is Jewish, there are also Ginsberg and Breyer who are.

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 5:00 AM

But there aren’t any Orthodox Jews on the Supreme Court. Kagan, Ginsberg, especially, are certainly what I’d call even Left of the Reformists.

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 5:02 AM

Leftists won’t be satisfied until practicing Catholicism Christianity in America becomes illegal.

workingclass artist on January 8, 2014 at 2:45 PM

.
I don’t believe they’re stopping at “Catholicism.”

listens2glenn on January 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Exactly…

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 5:03 AM

“Just sign the paper,” says the Left to these Nuns…just sign it, it’s harmless, it may even be an affirmation of your faith, just sign it and put an end to this so easily, just sign the piece of paper…”

Matthew 4:1-11

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Temptation of Jesus

4 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He [a]then became hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

5 Then the devil *took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and *said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,

‘He will command His angels concerning You’;

and

‘On their hands they will bear You up,
So that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus said to him, “[b]On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

8 Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; 9 and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and [c]worship me.” 10 Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and [d]serve Him only.’” 11 Then the devil *left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

Lourdes on January 9, 2014 at 5:10 AM

I am guessing Stiehm wouldn’t have voted for John F. Kennedy, since JFK was an eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Catholic, taking his marching orders from the Pope himself. I thought we conquered that type of religious bigotry in 1960.

pdigaudio on January 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM

This may go to explaining some of it. Viewers of Homeland would understand…..from the first season, 11th episode.

Consulting producer Meredith Stiehm and co-executive producer Chip Johannessen co-wrote the episode, it was Stiehm’s second writing credit for the series and Johannessen’s third credit. It was directed by Clark Johnson, his second directing credit for the series.

Carrie Mathison’s behavior during her manic episode was based in part on the personal experiences of writer Meredith Stiehm’s sister, Jamie Stiehm, who is bipolar.[1]

patrick neid on January 9, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Now it will take years of waffling on life, marriage and liberty for Francis to put this behind us…

shinty on January 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Did anyone tell this wench that nuns ARE the sisterhood?

Speechlesstx on January 11, 2014 at 1:09 PM