Obama Nominates Radical-Leftist to the US Court of Appeals


Radical feminist, Nina Pillard, Obama's nominee for the US Court of Appeals
Radical feminist, Nina Pillard, Obama’s nominee for the US Court of Appeals

Cornelia Pillard, a radical leftist, has been nominated to the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. Obama has pushed for her quick nomination, rushing ahead with her hearing before Congress has time to read her extensive writings.

She is seen by colleagues who have worked with her as the most left-wing appointee to the court in the history of the Republic.

One of her ideas is that federal judges should require egalitarian sex education. She sees the court as a place to legislate, contrary to our constitutional requirements.

Egalitarian sex education is her radical feminist view of what a sex education program must look like and she has stated that judges must mandate this type of education. She believes she has the right to inflict it on everyone.

Her views on abortion are fanatical:

She said it is necessary to help to “free[] women from historically routine conscription into maternity.” She also contends that men and women who oppose government mandates on employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception “reinforce[] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”

She doesn’t like ultrasounds because the fetuses look too much like babies. She complains that it produces “deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being that the anti-choice movement has popularized since the advent of amniocentesis.”

One colleague said she will “twist constitutional doctrine to suit the liberal cause du jour.”

Prior to a decision in the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church v. EEOC case, she wrote that the position of the defendant church represents “a substantial threat to the American rule of law.”

In that case, the SCOTUS, by a vote of 9-0, found that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches under the anti-employment discrimi­nation laws, because churches and other religious groups must be free to choose their leaders without government interference.

The litigants wanted to prevent the churches from firing people they find unsuitable. Pillard sees this as a threat. She wants the government to be able to determine who churches can or cannot fire.

Powerline blog has more on this case and others that involve Pillard. Included on their blog are details about her evasive and disingenuous testimony during her hearing.

Let’s be honest here – she’s out to lunch.

While ideologues like Pillard rail against the war on women, the Democrats themselves wage war on women.

Take this fool for instance:

digipixPhoto of Anthony Weiner in what appears to be a bathroom shot