Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., speaks at the Festival of Homiletics on May 22, 2018, at Metropolitan AME Church in Washington. RNS photo by Jack Jenkins

Cory Booker could be a candidate for the ‘religious left’

WASHINGTON (RNS) — Questions about religion can paralyze some politicians, but not Cory Booker.

If anything, the topic seems to relax him. Sitting in his spacious but spartan office on Capitol Hill in early October, the senator propped his sneakered feet up on his desk and waxed poetic about spiritual matters, bouncing between discussions of Jesus' disciples, housing policy and his own religious practices.

“When I get up in the morning, I meditate,” the New Jersey Democrat said, a practice he has often linked to his spiritual health. He paused for a moment, then quickly corrected himself: “Actually, I pray on my knees, and then I meditate.”

Booker's comfort with his faith is unusual for Democrats in Washington, but it’s standard fare for the 49-year-old former mayor of Newark and has even become a mainstay of his blossoming political persona: Even the hyperbole-averse Associated Press recently compared him to an “evangelical minister” after Booker addressed a group of Democrats in Iowa.

RELATED: Cory Booker: 'I'm calling for a revival of grace in this country'

AP had good cause: The decidedly progressive speech, which many speculated was a warmup for a 2020 presidential run, was peppered with talk about "faithfulness" and “grace." Booker closed by citing Amos 5:24 ("But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!") before shouting “Amen!” over the roaring crowd.

Asked about his tendency to fuse the political with the spiritual, Booker shrugged.

“I don't know how many speeches of mine you can listen to and not have me bring up faith,” he said. He noted he had just come from a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting where he had lifted a line from his stump speech: “Before you tell me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people.”

The sentiment, along with a message of unity that he brands as a “new civic gospel,” is generating buzz among Democrats. But Booker’s brand of public religiosity is especially attractive to an oft-forgotten but increasingly powerful group: the amorphous subset of religious Americans sometimes known as the religious left.

If he does run for president, as many expect, Booker may be one of the first Democratic candidates in decades to actively cultivate support from religious progressives.

A favorite of lefty faithful

Raised in an African Methodist Episcopal church and now a member of a National Baptist church in Newark, Booker has become a fixture at left-leaning religious gatherings as far back as 2014, when he showed up at a summit hosted by Sojourners, a Christian social justice organization. He “basically preached a sermon at the opening reception,” tweeted one organizer of the event.

In 2017, Booker attended a protest outside the U.S. Capitol hosted by the Rev. William Barber II, a prominent religious progressive who was there to denounce the Republican-led effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Earlier this year, Booker spoke at the Festival of Homiletics, a preaching conference attended by primarily white, liberal mainline clergy.

His appearance at these events has often resulted in standing ovations, and near endorsements.

“I don’t hope to move to New Jersey, but I do hope to vote for you someday, if you catch my drift,” the Rev. David Howell, the Presbyterian founder of the Festival of Homiletics, said while introducing Booker in May.

Booker claims that his faith is not partisan: He said religion is a way to reach across the aisle, and Republican Sen. John Thune is reportedly a member of his Bible study (along with New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another potential Democratic presidential hopeful). But if Booker is unapologetic about his faith, he's also unapologetic about the potential political effect of his God-talk.

“I think Democrats make the mistake often of ceding that territory to Republicans of faith,” Booker said.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., in his Washington office on Oct. 17, 2018. RNS photo by Jack Jenkins

 This image is available for web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

Eric Gregory, who studied with Booker at Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar and at Yale, said the senator’s fascination with faith is nothing new.

“He certainly has always been religiously musical,” said Gregory, now a professor of religion and chair of the humanities council at Princeton University.

Booker's fluency with faith isn't restricted to Christianity. His Facebook feed includes mentions of the Buddha, he referenced the Hindu god Shiva in a recent interview, and at Oxford in the 1990s he chaired the L’Chaim Society.

“He was always curious about diving deeply into different religious traditions and trying to understand them but also find wisdom within them,” said Gregory.

Still, Booker roots his personal faith in Christianity, particularly the black church tradition in which he was reared.

“I will talk about my faith, and I also talk about other faiths I study,” Booker told Religion News Service, sitting beneath an image of Mahatma Gandhi, one of the few adornments on his office walls. “I've studied Torah for years. Hinduism I've studied a lot. Islam, I've studied some, and I've been enriched by my study. But, for me, the values of my life are guided by my belief in the Bible and in Jesus.”

It's an approach to religion — multifaith, LGBTQ-inclusive, liberation theology-influenced and social-justice focused — that jibes perfectly with the makeup of the liberal coalition.

“The life of Jesus is very impactful to me and very important to me,” he said. “He lived a life committed to dealing with issues of the poor and the sick. The folks that other folks disregard, disrespect or often oppress. He lived this life of radical love that is a standard that I fail to reach every single day, but that really motivates me in what I do.”

But Booker insisted his connection with religious left leaders such as Barber, who spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, has less to do with political angling and more to do with a natural overlap of shared values.

“I find kinship with people I find inspiration from — people I would love to be more like,” he said. “Rev. Barber is powerful. To me, his charisma speaks, in an instructive way, towards my heart and my being. He is somebody who believes that being poor is not a sin or that poverty is a sin.”

Riding progressive religious power

Progressive religion, drowned out in recent decades by the well-organized religious right, has been revived by the rise of President Trump. Within weeks of the 2016 election, left-leaning religious groups saw spikes in funding. Their coalitions became a crucial part of the "resistance" to Trump's travel ban, the repeal of the ACA and the separation of families along the U.S.-Mexico border. Leaders such as Barber and Linda Sarsour, a prominent Muslim activist and core organizer of the Women’s March, have been elevated to the national stage.

As their influence increased, so too did side-by-side appearances with potential 2020 presidential hopefuls such as Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.; and others.

For modern religious progressives the new attention comes with a dilemma: What does it mean not only to protest power but to influence it — or even be courted by it?

"I think faith communities, particularly the religious left, need to become even more aware of the significant, for lack of a better word, lobbying power that they have," said the Rev. Kelly Brown Douglas, a theology professor and dean of Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary in New York.

Cory Booker meets with demonstrators at a protest in Washington, D.C., on June 28, 2017. RNS photo by Jack Jenkins

Marie Griffith, director of the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University in St. Louis, said the shift harks back to the era of President Carter, who ran as a Southern Baptist Democrat.

“I would absolutely see (Carter) as exemplifying this progressive Christian vision,” she said, noting that after he lost re-election the progressive religious spirit that elected him “went underground.” In a sense, the rise of Bookers and Barbers signals a return to form.

“They’ve got their boldness back, and they’re willing to speak in the name of religion and not hide their light under a bushel,” she said.

Douglas also highlighted the importance of Booker’s attachment to the black church.

"Historically, black communities have relied on the leadership and the wisdom of their faith leaders," she said.

It's unclear whether white Democrats of faith, whose numbers continue to dwindle, can be successfully courted along faith lines, despite numerous attempts over the years by groups such as Sojourners and others. But appealing to the faith of nonwhite Democrats, according to data unveiled earlier this year by Pew Research, suggests that may be a crucial long-term strategy for those seeking to turn red states blue. Although states with higher religious attendance and expression tend to be Republican, nonwhite populations in those states skew highly religious and deeply Democratic.

Douglas pointed out that Booker already exhibited the power of the black faith community in the 2017 Alabama senate race. As Republican Roy Moore battled accusations of child sex abuse, Democrat Doug Jones reached out to black voters, using the last days before the election to campaign at several black churches.

Standing next to Jones during those church visits was Booker.

Two days later, analysts largely credited Jones' victory to massive black voter turnout.

Preaching a new 'civic gospel'

Booker is not the only potential presidential hopeful vying for the religious left's attention. Warren, Harris and others are also winning hearts among the faithful. Booker has also faced hard questions from the left, including religious progressives, for taking large donations from Wall Street.

He’d likely also have to address the concerns of slightly less than a third of Democrats who do not claim a religious affiliation, many of whom are uneasy with politicians who cite faith as a guide. 

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., addresses Festival of Homiletics attendees at Metropolitan AME Church on May 22, 2018, in Washington. RNS photo by Jack Jenkins

But Booker is already working out ways to talk to them, too.

“I prefer to hang out with nice, kind atheists than mean Christians any day,” he has often said.

Meanwhile, the larger struggle may be to convert the religious left into an organized political force.

Gregory identifies “a kind of paralyzing despair or prophetic critique that disables the possibility of politics more than enabling it. In some ways, I think one of the reasons why Senator Booker often gets a lot of enthusiastic reception is because he is capable of recognizing severe challenges but also not giving in to the despair or withdrawal.”

Booker's optimism is embodied in his concept of a "civic gospel," a vision for a politics devoid of the “meanness” and "moral vandalism" that he sees in current political discourse, especially from Trump.

“I think God is love,” Booker said, leaning across his desk. “I think God is justice. I think that the ideals of this country are in line with my faith. I don't need to talk about religion to talk about those ideals that all Americans hold dear.”

Perhaps Booker is something of an evangelical — or at least an evangelist — for this ecumenical sense that politics and religion are not mutually exclusive, all while reaching those outside the religious fold with a broader inclusive message. Whether the faithful, literal and figurative, will rally around that idea will likely be the question of his next two years.

“Every speech I give, I will not yield from talking about that revival of civic grace,” he said.


  1. I admire Cory Booker and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But I’ve heard that he’s gay, and America has shown that it is not ready for an openly gay president, much less an openly gay black one. Maybe in a century or two… or three, but not now. This could be hearsay, but I doubt it, since the people who told me this live in New Jersey. If he should decide to run for president he will be outed and then promptly shredded to bits. As for his religiosity, what does it matter? Now that so-called Evangelical Christians have debased themselves and their religion by embracing a person who in every conceivable way is the least religious president, and certainly the least Christian-acting one in American history even though he identifies as Christian, who is left to care if a presidential candidate says s/he is religious when Trump’s debasement of that label has rendered it utterly meaningless? I’d rather have someone who can win an election. A single gay black man can’t win a national election in America now. He just can’t. Democrats needs someone who can win, and that’s the bottom line, at least for me.

  2. Yup; he’s gay alright. There’s a picture of him above smiling while hugging a white guy. At least he’s not shy about crossing racial lines.
    How you can take a thoughtful article about a guys faith and turn it into a gay thing is beyond me…. oh wait, that’s your first little box – right?
    And you call conservatives closed minded.
    Anyway, good luck trying to pick your democratic candidate for 2020; I heard Hillary may run again.

  3. He’s gay, big deal, but he assaulted a teenage girl, he admitted it, and he sexually assaulted a gay man. I believe accusers because he said that I should.

  4. “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!”

    Booker proved how little he actually believes in that verse when he did his best to destroy a good man and inflict incalculable pain on his family in the name of politics.

  5. I hadn’t heard anything about these allegations so I went Googling. Here’s the way a Wapo commenter describes Booker’s alleged assault of the teenage girl, compared with the Brett Kavanaugh situation:

    On the one hand we have a 15-year-old trying to grope a girl who (by his account) kissed him willingly, and then later feeling guilty and writing about it, acknowledging his culpability in such, effectively calling himself out and promising to do better.

    On the other, we have a 17-year-old and his friend holding down a girl, covering her mouth and cranking the music so no one hears her scream, and actively trying to rape her – and then later on trying to deny the whole thing while at the same time brushing it off as no big deal and just “normal” adolescent behavior. As well as actively trying to discredit the victim.

    If anyone cannot see the glaring differences between these two scenarios, they are blind, willfully ignorant, a horrific person, or all three.

    Regarding the alleged gay assault, the only item that came up was from conservative PJ Media. But even given their bias they admit that the alleged victim says he contacted journalist Ronan Farrow, the “father of the #MeToo movement,” who requested a phone conversation but never got back to him after the victim gave Farrow his number.

    Maybe that’s because Farrow, who is nothing if not thorough, realized there was no there there.

  6. I’ve heard that he’s gay

    Gay is the new Black.

  7. Here’s another way to look at it. We have a man who assaulted a teenage girl, we know 100% that he did it, (MeToo movement has remained silent on this issue) and we have an accuser who said it happened but had no corroboration. None. Her best friend doesn’t remember it and didn’t change her testimony even when the accuser and her friends asked her to.

    As far as the lawyers go, true, Farrow didn’t respond, at least yet, unlike the Porn Star Lawyer. I don’t know about you, but I find it a lot easier to believe that Booker assaulted a gay man than believe that Kavanaugh drugged girls so that his buddies could gang rape her, and he did it at least 10 times, but no one ever told anyone about it.

    And let’s not forget about Keith Ellison.
    But I know the rules now, I must believe Kavanaugh’s accuser, but not Ellison’s.

    And it’s not surprising that you didn’t hear about the Booker allegations. CNN didn’t mention it. Surprise!!
    But they didn’t waste any time talking about the Porn Star lawyer’s claim, did they?

  8. You seem rather heavily invested in this obscure story that I had to seek out to learn anything about. I find that curious.

  9. I thought orange was the new black – and I’m not referring to the Netflix series.

  10. And you seem to be invested in the fact that one crime is more serious than the other, but fail to care that one is proven, the other is hearsay.

  11. Yes, we had a Black president, and now we have an Orange one.

  12. Is it okay to ask that WE be left out of this one? As you can infer from Ms. Alexandra’s reply, it’s not really considered humorous within the black community.

  13. (Cory Booker) said that “Being a hero was a serious turn-on.” He continued, “The Senate appreciates fine citizens like you. Especially this senator.”
    — from the gay man (alleged victim)’s detailed letter; from Rick Moran’s article at PJ Media (10-21-18):

    Okay Houston, we DO have a problem. How will the selective #MeToo marchers and their one-sided media shills handle THIS story? They can (and probably will) ignore it, unless this gay man reveals his name.

    But if Cory Booker tries to run for Prez and this guy has NOT gone into hiding, then the story WILL explode and somebody will “out” his name. That event would stick Cory Booker in the political microwave — the 2,200-watt industrial version. The name of this gay man’s attorney has already been revealed — a Ms. Harmeet Dhillon.

  14. It would be nice if religion were left out of politics. Religion is divisive in a special way: once you bring in God, and one’s always peculiar interpretation of God, you cannot compromise because God is absolute. Stick to the human, it offers a better way to make peace and get on with who has the best solutions to problems.

  15. Kavanaugh is not a “good man”. He’s nothing but a hypocrite and a liar.

  16. Hypocrite and liar? Who isn’t to some extent? But no, so far as the hearings were concerned there’s no evidence he lied about anything.

  17. Of course you were a witness at the alleged assault, at the unknown location & time?

  18. Ah, are they the Lefties that appease the 57 Islamist supremacist Apartheid nations oppress Christians, Women and Gays?

  19. The accuser testified under penalty of perjury. Kavanaugh perjured himself several times.

  20. Only if you think alcoholic short tempered immature whiners who likely committed sexual assault and have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement and contempt for others and propriety are good people.

    Those with actual values beg to differ. The only values conservatives have these days are “I’ve got mine, up yours”.

  21. I would suggest you read a little about said lawyer to see if PJ Media failed to fact check (again) the story – somehow I doubt this guy is a client.

    That being said, the current president has set a moral standard so low, that Cory Booker exceeds this minimal bar easily.

  22. I don’t think people like you described are good people. You didn’t describe Kavanaugh. He worked for what he achieved, that’s not a sense of entitlement. He’s as likely of having committed sexual assault as you are. He’s as likely to be an alcoholic as you are. Had you been wrongly accused of such an act, me thinks you would have been short tempered.

  23. Ford lied under oath. She had the door installed 4 years before she went to therapy, and it’s an entrance to a room that they rent out.
    She also coached her friend on how to pass a lie detector test when she was applying for a job with the FBI. She got the job. She’s also the friend who coerced Leland to change her testimony.

  24. But at least unlike Clinton, he wasn’t accused of rape.

  25. No she didn’t. Nobody testified under oath to refute her story, no evidence introduced either.

    You are relying on what would be hearsay or double hearsay. Unreliable stories told second to third hand.

    But Kavanaugh was recorded as lying several times. Plus breaking down in an unhinged rant.

  26. Even the PJ Media article itself, acknowledged the possibility of being wrong about this alleged Gay-Metoo incident.

    But nobody can yet say one way or the other — and the gay guy will have to take the giant life-changing risk of identfying himself by name to the national media, if he wants his MeToo report taken seriously by anybody. Apparently he already is aware of that reality.

    P.S. Attacking Trump”s sins won’t save Cory’s bacon at all. He’s safe as long as he stays a senator, but if he tries to run for President he is Toast on Steroids.

  27. Exactly.
    Did you read the whole, long, very detailed letter?
    He knows when and where it happened, he knows that Booker was there, and there will be plenty of witnesses to say they were both there.
    If he comes forward, considering what they did to Kavanaugh with nothing except a woman, trying to cry, claiming that it happened, Booker could face some real trouble. Definitely enough to end his presidential bid.
    And it could start a snowball effect with a lot of other people coming out with similar claims.

  28. Nope. You are in denial. Kavanaugh is not a self made man, he came from inherited wealth and family connections. He acted like an immature manbaby and dishonors the bench. Republicans sold out their self respect to put him there.

    WhOrish behavior of endorsing all sorts of miscreants to get the goals they want has become the norm for conservatives. Any sense of values, integrity or even basic decency has left them.

  29. That isn’t the only lie she told. The prosecutor that questioned her quietly and courteously brought out a lot of inconsistencies that will return to haunt Ford later — once the Kavanaugh impeachment process starts.

    Which is why, if course, there will be no Kavanaugh impeachment.

  30. He came from wealth? Well how dare he come from wealth rather than live on welfare!!!!
    Republicans sold out their self respect? LOL No, rather the Democrats were so desperate that they sold out their souls and tried to ruin a man just to get their own way.

    Let’s see if he dishonors the bench, he wasn’t on the bench, he was a man who was being accused of a heinous crime with nothing to back it up.
    Maybe your father or son will end up in the same position one day, and see how he reacts when everyone believes the accuser, and chances are that they will believe the accuser, that’s how it is now.

  31. Then it will be time for the FBI to investigate HER. Eight times.. Maybe we’ll find out why a 15 year old would be at a party drinking beer.
    When the story broke ALL of her social media was scrubbed from the internet.

  32. All of the witnesses she named testified under penalty of perjury! Which is why there was no reason to question them again, but they did and the answers remained the same. They had no idea WTH she was talking about.
    Get your facts straight.

    No evidence was introduced because there wasn’t any. It never happened.

    She also finally came up with the summer of 82 for her time frame because she read Mark Judge’s book. He said he worked at the Safeway that summer. Hmmmmmmmmm.

  33. Indeed it was.

    Maybe we’ll also find out how a 15 year old in 1982 squares with “late teens in the mid-1980s.”

  34. Spuddie doesn’t think statements made to the FBI carry the penalty of perjury. LOL!

  35. Can’ tell who you are referring to. But if it is Trump, he wins the moral vacuum award. Not even apples to apples and there’s no endorsement of/ excuse for Clinton. I don’t get why so many evangelicals give Trump a pass.

  36. I guess not, but the first time they were questioned under penalty of perjury, that’s why they couldn’t see the point of another FBI investigation. Had any of the witnesses changed their story they would have been charged with perjury. That was discussed during the hearing, so I guess Spuddie didn’t watch it. 🙂

  37. Well, there’s pro-life. But I don’t think they do give him a pass, they just preferred him to the other candidate, preferred him to someone who was going to continue with Obama’s policies.. If we only vote for someone that we’re 100% in agreement with, we won’t ever vote for anyone.
    I think keeping us safe, securing the borders, and a whole lot more jobs is something they’d agree with. So do I, I don’t care who they screwed or how many they screwed, as long as it was consensual.

  38. Simply good timing or being in the right place at the right time kind of thing in terms of the economy now – However, many economists are more concerned about down the road impacts of deficit, decreased govt revenues, tariffs and inflation. In fact I think restrictive immigration policies are also going to harm the US given the nature and number of unfilled jobs.

  39. Now you are just lying for its own sake. Making the lamest of excuses for unrebutted sworn testimony.

    It was clear from the outset Republicans didn’t care about the allegations and were looking for excuses to push Kavanaugh through regardless of the conditions. Between the last minute document dump of his record, softball questions by Republicans and the refusal to even hear the allegations until forced to, it was obvious they just didn’t care.

    Evidence was introduced by Ford’s testimony, which was not disputed, rebutted or shown to be false by any introduction of evidence.

    But then again, the Republicans acted like wh0res to push through one of the worst candidates for SCOTUS to ever take the bench. They ignored anything remotely inconvenient to that task. Even Kavanaugh’s unhinged behavior at the hearings.

  40. OK, you admit that you lied about his background. Fair enough there.

    Kavanaugh ruined himself with such immature behavior at the hearings and most likely has a history of sexual assault. He already has a known history of alcoholism and a short temper. Your willingness to overlook such behavior is particularly wh0rish on your part. You will say anything to advance the party line.

  41. They all refuted her testimony “under oath”. YOU are lying.
    And of course no evidence was introduced. There is no evidence. If there was evidence, Ford would have come up with it. There can’t be any evidence of a crime from 36 years ago especially if the crime never happened.
    No one came forward who has remembered that night. No one has come forward to say they drove her to and from the gathering. Ford’s entire testimony is hearsay.

  42. Who is “they” here? There were no other people testifying under oath to dispute Ford. You are full of it.

    If no evidence is introduced and no testimony proffered to rebut Ford, then her story is considered credible evidence on its face.

    Republicans have been willing to sell out any notions of duty values and ethics to grab whatever benefit they can. Lying comes natural to the president. His supporters feel emboldened to make ridiculously untrue statements and positions in service of conservative goals.

    Republicans put a short tempered, immature alcoholic probable sexual predator manbaby on SCOTUS. Their goal was met, you can stop pretending such a person was a good or even honest one.

    He was a garbage candidate for the position. Being a Republican was all they cared about. As if they could not find anyone with a similar judicial record who was mature or could keep their composure in public.

    Thank you for showing me what kind of low character is now considered acceptable by conservatives.

  43. Since Kavanaugh is in no way, shape, or form an “alcoholic short tempered immature whiner” and the likelihood that he committed sexual assault is poor at best, your description obviously doesn’t apply and so can’t be used to excuse the Democrats’ sins.

  44. Kavanaugh’s blatant lies are well documented and he should be impeached for lying under oath during his confirmation hearings. As for his hypocrisy that too is well documented and only the extremists deny his hypocrisy & his lying.

  45. About this discussion: STOP BICKERING, finding fault, being self-righteous, so very sure of yourselves. Sit in God’s presence and respond as if each commentator is a beloved child of God.

  46. You need to stop drinking the kool-aid. No, there are no well-documented, blatant lies that Kavanaugh told during the confirmation hearings.

  47. His performance at the hearing was unhinged immature whining. If you though he comported himself honorably it’ll or maturely, your judgment must be impaired. He admitted to out of control drinking.

    He was likely a sexual predator. The Republicans were not interested in hearing any of it. Much like they were willing to ignore Trumps admission of being a sexual predator caught in their for Access Hollywood.

  48. His “performance” at the hearing was that of a man justly angry at being accused of being a serial rapist, with his enemies trying to use that unsupported accusation to destroy his reputation and career without care for the pain they were inflicting on his family. Democrats are just upset that that “performance” saved his confirmation, they undoubtedly expected him to just sit there and take it until he gave up and went away.

    And yes, he never denied excessive drinking in the past, but there is zero evidence gat he continued to drink to excess to this day much less that he’s ever been drunk while on the job. As for being a sexual predator, what you are ignoring is that such people DON’T STOP. They keep right on creating victim after victim, like Cosby and Weinstein. So where’s the evidence that Kavanaugh is remotely like Cosby or Weinstein?

  49. It was a person who could not hold himself with the maturity and temperament required for such a public and prestigious position. The excuses and apologetics for this guy go beyond reasonable or rational.

    Surely the GOP could have done better than this guy. You can stop giving me a snow job here that he ever represented the best possible conservative candidate here. Clearly you feel like trying to spin a ridiculous showing at the confirmation hearing. Either your standards fit appropriate behavior are crazy low or you are just giving me nonsense.

    He was Trumps pick, that is all that mattered to you and Republican senators.

  50. Who am I to judge his judicial qualifications? From what I understand he was a consensus pick, the Originalist that would be most acceptable to Democrats (which needs to be remembered the next time, there’s no point trying to appeal to Democrats).

    What I am more qualified to judge is the man, and by all accounts he’s a fine one—a good father and husband, and someone that does more than just show up at church on Sundays—who has been viciously slandered by those that have shown themselves to be his enemies. So complian about “maturity and temperament” all you want, his passionate response saved his nomination and denied his enemies the victory they sacrificed their integrity to obtain—including Cory Booker, to get back to this article’s subject; he may be a Christian, but he has proven himself a very poor one.

  51. He was Trump’s pick, that’s all that mattered to you and the Democratic senators.

  52. “He was Trump’s pick”

    Which is why Republicans acted like shameless wh0res to get him on SCOTUS regardless of any consideration. Its all that mattered to you. Not the shameful display of immaturity, short temper or past sexual assault.

    Seriously out of all the conservatives on the federal bench, this guy was clearly not the best of the bunch. Any attempt to polish that t_rd is just laughable.

  53. Which of his 300+rulings that can be read by anyone clearly say that he was not the best of the bunch?
    Please tell me which rulings you disagree with, I’m curious, and which of the other 24 judges on the list would you have preferred, and why?
    Remember that the democrats said they wouldn’t confirm any of the 25.
    That’s the problem that the democrats had, they couldn’t use his record to stop him so they outed Ford at the last minute. They didn’t do that sooner because they knew that anyone with a few brain cells weren’t going to buy the ridiculous, uncorroborated story she was dishing out, but it was all that they had left, and they did say they’d do whatever necessary to stop him.

  54. All of them, as seen by his poor showing at the senate confirmation hearing. Judge Kavanaugh is obviously off his rocker.

    I have heard this canned spiel before by other apologists for the alcoholic manbaby sexual predator. Republicans could have done better than that loser. Just roll with it. Conservatives have gotten used to supporting immature incompetent manbabies as of late.

  55. The Dems really blew it this time. They should have saved their big guns (puny though they might be) for the next nominee, who will be vastly more dangerous to Roe than Kavanaugh is.

  56. They probably have another one, or two, being prepped as we speak. They’ll be ready to go.

  57. Is stalking people on the internet really all you’re good for?

  58. You consider lynching LGBTQ+ people to be humorous, for some reason. Are you sure you’re black?

  59. In other words, you can’t answer my questions, because you have no idea what you’re talking about. You know NOTHING about his record in the courts. The protesters at the confirmation hearing had no idea what was coming and neither did you. He was Trump’s pick, that’s why the democrats didn’t want him. Period.

    As it turns out, he’s not the loser, he didn’t lose, the democrats did, and the crybabies will never get over their loss. They never do.
    They need a safe space and a crying room again.

  60. Trump supporters are thrilled at the confirmation of our newly minted Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and why wouldn’t we be, after all, Brett Kavanaugh’s voting record aligns with President Trump’s nationalist populist economic agenda. #MAGA!!! #THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP! #AMERICA FIRST.

    “I would hold that an illegal immigrant worker is not an “employee” under the NLRA for the simple reason that, ever since 1986, an illegal immigrant worker is not a lawful “employee” in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote in Agri Processor Co. v. NLRB, 514 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

    When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) blocked Fogo de Chao from importing a Brazillian chef on the L-1B visa rather than hiring an American chef, the D.C. District Court ruled in favor of Fogo de Chao.

    Kavanaugh, though, wrote the dissenting opinion, noting that U.S. multinational corporations do not have the right to import foreign workers that they perceive to be better at a particular job than Americans.

  61. The US Supreme Court will uphold the rule of law and crush the flawed and politically motivated rulings of leftist activist judges. How sad for the left. P.S.BRAVO SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH.
    The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether the Trump administration can detain immigrants with criminal records indefinitely, years after they’ve served time for the offense. The court’s newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh, however, seemed to argue against the court writing a time limit into the law. On his second day on the bench, Kavanaugh said Congress would have known that DHS wouldn’t be able to immediately detain immigrants after they are released from jail or prison and noted Congress didn’t include a time limit.

    “That raises a real question for me whether we should be superimposing a time limit into the statute when Congress, at least as I read it, did not itself do so,” he said.

  62. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is the DACA “dreamers” worst nightmare!!! Sad day for leftist globalists that want to replace the founding stock of the USA with 3rd world immigrants and their offspring.


    Will Kavanaugh Finally Cast the Vote that Ends DACA?

    Admin wants to bring DACA case back to Supreme Court quickly with Kavanaugh in.

  63. Senator Corry Booker is the type of pastoral and political individual who can give guidance in these dark days, the world on the precipice of global war, a person who can bring light and hope. Of spiritual integrity he is not one to shy away from the hard questions, the hard realities.
    Events are fulfilling the pattern of history. This does require us to ask the hard question: why does humanity keep coming back to war? And all the evidence suggests we are heading for world war – nuclear war.
    It all comes down to power. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of history; the pattern is quite clear. Protection of core interests and survival are what will drive nations to nuclear holocaust. Every nation/civilization eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid. For half a century the superpowers tried to avoid annihilation. It seems now they are running out of time. But leaders delude themselves, thinking they can avoid their fate. They can’t unless they can change their relationship with power. The next hard question: can they do that?


    You’re going to find that the name of this game is “Mark Silk is really smart and always right”.

    “The courts only get to accept or reject religious beliefs based on whether they are sincerely held.” is complete and total hogwash.

    The basis for the actions of the current Administration are going forward with the blessing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, a 1993 United States federal law that “ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected.”

    It was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (!) on March 11, 1993, and a companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (!) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate – three senators voted against it – passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

    It is the law on which the Hobby Lobby decision was based, thanks specifically to the Obama Administration’s attempt to make it a dead letter by “interpretation”.

    Dr. Silk is engaging in a p-ssing contest about the demise of his treasured liberal agenda which was advanced by a Supreme Court who cared not a fig for the Constitution, and he chose a Catholic topic specifically to bait Catholic folks into getting banned.

    You’re the last stalwart standing in his articles.

  65. All opinion, but no facts.

    There’s a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you, cheap to.

    Send $5M to a ‘to be named bank” in Juarez.

  66. News source, supporting my view.

    Your opinion of it = worthless denial

  67. Your arrogance & ignorance are on display for all to see.

  68. In other words, you asked a stupid question and did not deserve a serious answer.

    Anyone who could look at his showing at the hearing and say it was the act of a mature, honest, worthy person is either lying or engaging in some major denial. It was a national joke

    Again, good luck polishing that dookieof a justice. You have many years to rationalize your support for this whiny manbaby.

Leave a Comment