Is Dick Durbin the Dumbest US Senator not Named Barbara Boxer?

Friday, August 9, AD 2013

 

 

 

 

John Hinderacker of Powerline asks the crucial question:  is Dick Durbin (D. Ill) the dumbest Democrat?:

 

The competition is intense, but Durbin is definitely a contender. Here is the latest evidence:

In preparation for a previously announced hearing on controversial “stand your ground” laws announced after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., sent letters to more than 300 possible corporate backers of the American Legislative Exchange Council, requesting their position on such policies in states across the country.

This is Durbin’s press release announcing the “stand your ground” hearing in his Senate Judiciary subcommittee:

Around 30 states currently have some form of “stand your ground” laws on the books. September’s hearing will examine the gun lobby’s and the American Legislative Exchange Council’s influence in creating and promoting these laws; the way in which the laws have changed the legal definition of self-defense; the extent to which the laws have encouraged unnecessary shooting confrontations; and the civil rights implications when racial profiling and “stand your ground” laws mix, along with other issues.

There are multiple layers of stupidity here, so let’s try to itemize at least some of them:

1) Self-defense is a matter of state, not federal, law. Why is Durbin’s Judiciary Subcommittee holding a hearing on a topic that cannot, and will not, result in federal legislation?

2) “Stand your ground” had nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin case, as both prosecutors and defense lawyers said, and as we and many others have explained countless times. Is Dick Durbin really one of the few who don’t get this?

3) As Durbin’s own press release states, around 30 states have some some sort of stand your ground legislation. That is a clear majority. There is a reason for this. Most people think such laws are a good idea, as shown by, for example, a strong 45%-32% plurality in this Rasmussen survey. It is not necessary to investigate the influence of some nefarious “lobby” to explain why popular legislation is enacted in 30 states.

4) Durbin’s attack on the American Legislative Exchange Council is a sad page in the current left-wing playbook. A previously little-known good government group (albeit one with broad support and participation among both corporations and legislators), ALEC found itself in the left-wing crosshairs a year or so ago, and has remained there. Why? Roll Call’s blog offers a clue:

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Is Dick Durbin the Dumbest US Senator not Named Barbara Boxer?

  • Interesting headline, but Donald, aren’t you from Maryland?

  • Durbin’s not stupid, he’s simply an unimaginative legislative hack. For my money, Al Franken’s a much bigger dumbass, largely because he thinks he’s a member of the smart set.

  • “Durbin’s not stupid, he’s simply an unimaginative legislative hack.”

    There is no reason why he can’t be both.

  • Pinky,

    You’re thinking of the wrong blogger. Donald’s from Illinois.

  • Paul – I stand corrected.
    Donald – Have you heard of Maryland? Although yeah, I guess I can’t argue with an Illinoisan about this. This is a tough category to judge. I’m not even sure that the average Californian would rank Boxer as the second-smartest Senator from the state.

  • My Senator for many years was Charles Schumer. I think I might prefer dumbass.

    What is disconcerting is the extension of the unpleasantness of the nutroots into the world of working politicians. Alinsky said: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” You have masses of people with obsessions about Sarah Palin, the Koch brothers, and now the American Legislative Exchange Council, as if any one of these were doing anything out of the ordinary in a political system which has deliberative processes.

  • I will confess gentlemen that in reference to Durbin home state loyalty is tugging at my sleeve. In regard to the Senate, massive ignorance and foolishness are never in short supply, and good cases can be made for the odious, and never intentionally funny, Al Franken and the embalmed Barbara Mikulski.

  • The best you can say about Dick Durbin is…umm…huh, I see your point, Donald.

  • I don’t think he’s dumb at all. He just knows what side his bread is buttered on (the left side, of course). Also, he and his staff seem to have a good reputation for direct service to constituents who call his offices with questions or requests for help. That may be one reason he keeps getting reelected by large margins, even in Downstate counties (though I wouldn’t vote for him if he were the last politician on earth).

  • Durbin may well be the dumbest Senator as it is hard to refute your logic. However most certainly by claiming to be Catholic and being pro abortion he is a heretic. I would call him a knave and a fool.

  • Let’s not forget that Mr. Durbin also managed to discover soot inside Chicago’s Union Train Station. He even called a press conference to announce it. Unfortunately for the senator, no one was willing to take his concern seriously. The man is an embarrassment to the human race!

  • This insipid character, who is eligible for a handsome pension after 30-odd years on the federal payroll, is of the view that we all are in need of his septuagenarian wit and wisdom.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/dick-durbin-reelection-se_n_2854787.html

    Not as egregious as the 94 year old Strom Thurmond standing for re-election in 1996 (and who was so dotty in his last years that he ended up making a pass at the columnist Mark Steyn while attempting to cop a feel of a woman they were sharing an elevator with), or Robert Byrd being parked in Congress for 56 years until expiring at the age of 92, or the 84 year old Ted Stevens offering that 40 years of him was not enough for the voters of Alaska, or the 80 year old Richard Lugar insisting that 36 years of him (of which 35 years had him using a house he had sold in 1977 as his voting address) was insufficient. Mandatory retirement, please.

  • “…is Dick Durbin (D. Ill) the dumbest Democrat?”

    Most – if not all – Democrats think the way in which Dick Durbin thinks when it comes to conservative, right-wing, Christian and especially orthodox Catholic bloggers. They believe that only they are freedom-loving and anyone who disagrees with them on any issue – especially those related to sexual morality and the right to life – are fascists who need to be squashed. I deal with one such person who is a super-knowledgeable pro-nuclear blogger. As I have commented here before, his ability in nuclear engineering and science far outweighs my own 33 years of training and experience. But he is an adamant leftist in 100% agreement with Dick Durbin. Why? Because he is a leftist and by definition all such leftists are willingly blind, beholden only to the religion of their left-wing ideology in which they equivocate license to sexual immorality and murder of the unborn with freedom and choice, but deny freedom of conscience – even freedom of speech – to all others.

    This is not going to end well at all. Not at all. 🙁

  • Sen. Durbin is Catholic? Who knew? And who’s Durbin’s bishop?

    Well-publicized public faithlessness of Catholics who seek a public stage or public authority should be publicly called out and a demand made publicly for a well-publicized public recantation.

Senator Durbin, Bloggers and the First Amendment

Tuesday, May 28, AD 2013

 

 

One of the worst senators in the nation, Dick Durbin (D.Ill.), wonders whether the First Amendment covers bloggers in the above video.  I can understand why Durbin brings this up.  First, because Durbin is a Democrat hack.  Originally elected to Congress from the congressional district including Springfield, Illinois, Durbin ran as a pro-lifer, defeating pro-abort Republican Congressman Paul Findley.  Realizing that a pro-life Democrat was going nowhere in Congress, he switched to being a pro-abort and now has a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from National Right to Life.  That he is a Catholic is of course of no consequence to him in regard to his politically expedient choice of embracing abortion uber alles.  Durbin is a down the line liberal and most contemporary liberals and Democrats hate and fear the new media that does not give them lock step subservience as does most of the mainstream media.

Second, Durbin, a graduate of Georgetown Law School, must obviously be a rotten attorney as the issue of the extent of First Amendment Freedom of the Press was long ago decided by the Supreme Court in Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938).  In that case, for a unanimous court, except for Benjamin Cardozo who recused himself, Chief Justice Hughes wrote:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Senator Durbin, Bloggers and the First Amendment

  • Second, Durbin, a graduate of Georgetown Law School, must obviously be a rotten attorney as the issue of the extent of First Amendment Freedom of the Press was long ago decided by the Supreme Court in Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938).

    Is it just my imagination, or is it strongly atypical to find a Washington pol drawn from the bar who ever made a decent living as a lawyer? It seems at time that about 80% of them are people who could hardly be bothered (Charles Schumer, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, Bilge Clinton), hacks (John Kerry, Joseph Biden), or shady characters (John Edwards, Hillary Clinton). Can the lawyers on this board instruct us??

  • Another example of why I refer to this guy as “Dick Dirtbag”.

  • Is it just my imagination, or is it strongly atypical to find a Washington pol drawn from the bar who ever made a decent living as a lawyer?

    Abraham Lincoln was a fairly successful attorney.

    Oh, you mean in this century? Ummmm . . . .

  • “We need to ask 21st-century questions”. Yikes. That can’t be good.

  • Is this Durbin the fellow that lately called US troops Nazis?

    Anyhow, I’m wondering whether they wrote the Second Amendment to stop regressive idiots like “Dirtbag.”

    PS: Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution nor the Congress gave it to you. God and the Continental Army gave you freedom.

  • Arguably, Ted Cruz had a fairly successful background as an attorney (much of it, admittedly, political in nature) prior to seeking elected office (from Wikipedia):

    “Cruz was Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.[1] He was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas,[3] the youngest Solicitor General in the United States, and had the longest tenure in Texas history. He was formerly a partner at the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national appellate litigation practice.[4]

    “He previously served as the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. In addition, Cruz was an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation, from 2004 to 2009.

    […]

    “Cruz served as a law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States,[1] and J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[23][3] Cruz was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for a Chief Justice of the United States.[24]

    “Cruz served as an associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department[1] and as the director of policy planning at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission under President George W. Bush.[22][1]

    “In 2003, Cruz was appointed Solicitor General of Texas by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.[3]

    “Cruz has authored more than 80 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court.[3][22][25] In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz drafted the amicus brief signed by attorneys general of 31 states, which said that the D.C. handgun ban should be struck down as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.[25][26] Cruz also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[25][27] Cruz did legal work during the Florida recount during the Presidential campaign of Bush/Cheney 2000.[28]

    “In addition to his victory in Heller, Cruz has successfully defended the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds,[22][25] the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools[22] and the majority of the 2003 Texas redistricting plan.[29]

    “Cruz also successfully defended, in Medellin v. Texas, the State of Texas against an attempt by the International Court of Justice to re-open the criminal convictions of 51 murderers on death row throughout the United States.[3][22][25]

    “Cruz has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America,[30][31] by The National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America,[32][33] and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.[34][35]”

  • I take back “arguably” in my previous comment. That’s an impressive record for someone’s entire career, much less for someone barely over the age of 40.

  • I am curious to know what attorneys in private practice make of in-house counsel and government lawyers. This fellow Durbin’s entire career (13 years) was spent in political staff positions: counsel to this and that committee of the legislature and to this or that elected official.

  • When I was practicing law, in-house counsel positions and certain government positions were often sought after by those who wanted to maintain some semblance of work/personal balance in their lives. I wouldn’t say they were looked upon with any particular disdain by their private practice counterparts.

    My experience was that the bottom of the lawyer food chain (in the eyes of other lawyers) consisted of the ambulance-chasing, television-advertising personal injury lawyers.

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

Wednesday, September 9, AD 2009

Pro-abort Catholic PolsFather Roger J. Landry concludes here that the strategy of the Church to privately persuade Catholic pro-abort pols of the errors of their ways has been a flat failure.

“Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of pro-choice Catholic politicians from both parties — Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo, and Biden to name just a handful — is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?

Another way to assess the results of the education-alone strategy is to measure the direction that pro-choice Catholic politicians have moved over the years. Even if they haven’t experienced a total conversion, have they moved closer toward limiting abortions or toward making abortions easier to access? The facts show that the vast majority of personally opposed, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators have become far less personally opposed and far more publicly in favor over the duration of the strategy.

In the initial years after Roe versus Wade, publicly pro-choice Catholic legislators generally whispered their support for abortion. They displayed a palpable sense of shame, letting their abortion position out just enough so that it wouldn’t cost them the votes of abortion supporters. That discomfort began to dissipate after Governor Mario Cuomo’s 1984 pro-choice defense at Notre Dame. We’ve now come to a situation when pro-choice Catholic legislators vigorously curry the favor of Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List;  scores of Catholics in Congress have the chutzpah to co-sponsor the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate almost every abortion restriction ever passed at the federal or state level; and 16 out of 25 Catholic Senators vote against conscience protections to prevent their fellow Catholics in the medical field from being forced to participate in abortions and sterilizations.”

Father Landry ends by suggesting a new approach, perhaps we might call it the “more than hot air” approach:

“Jesus spoke of a different way in the Gospel (Mt 18:15-18). It involves not merely general educational statements that we hope offenders will apply to themselves in conscience, but the type of one-on-one instruction traditionally called fraternal correction. If that fails, and fails repeatedly, Jesus enjoined us to regard the offender as someone who no longer belongs to the community, who is no longer a member in good standing. This may seem harsh, but we should remember that Jesus always seeks nothing but the best for his Church and for individual sinners, even obstinate sinners. Implied in Jesus’ strategy is that education involves not just information, but formation, and that you can’t form disciples without discipline. This is a lesson that, after four decades of the undeniable failure of another approach, we need to consider anew.”

Hattip to my friend the ever vigilant Jay Anderson at Pro Ecclesia,  and please go here to read his comments on Father Landry’s argument.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians and the Church

  • Finally, someone has the courage to state what must be done.

    Thanks
    Paul

  • Yes, I agree with the idea of not considering them part of the community anymore but I think we need to voice that more. We need to let our congregation, the nation and the world know that we do not tolerate abortion support….and that Catholics who support and advocate it are excommunicated. We need to literally stand up and state what our Catechism says:

    “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”

  • Well stated Simon. I was disappointed that Caroline Kennedy was pro-choice, repulsive, it’s incompatible with Catholic beliefs. Isn’t their someone in the Kennedy clan who bolts from this philosophy and ideology? Isn’t it good to know, of course, that Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece is pro-life.

    I have never wavered being pro-life though I have considered the question in full when younger, I respect an argument. Now, I consider how central and pivotal of an idea is it for the Church to be pushing.

    It was an interesting editorial in the UK, by a spokesman for the Tories I believe in the Daily Telegraph that grilled Ted Kennedy for voting for the partial birth abortions. England, can’t speak for the total UK because abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland like the Republic of Ireland, but one would think England is a bit like the USA in this regard. However, many in England find our “partial birth” abortions very evil. Okay, I would find fault with all abortions but I have met others from England who do not accept the late terms abortions that occur in the USA even though they are pro-choice. The Tories by the way in the above articles did not want Ted Kennedy to get Knighthood since basically, he’s had long term ties to supporting the IRA or something of this nature. I apologize for any of this being offtopic.

  • Don:

    Totally agree with your post and the comments of Jay Anderson and the good Father. People forget that there were even limits to Christ’s spirit of charity and inclusiveness such as when he tossed the money changers out of the temple.

    That being said how can one justify actions by other “Catholic” laity and politicians in promoting other activity that runs contrary to Catholic teaching, i.e. torture, pre-emptive war, the death penalty, divorce? How can one be a “Catholic” divorce lawyer? How can one be a “Catholic” judge or prosecutor that encourages or enforces the death penalty? How can one be a “Catholic” public official that allows or attempts to justify torture and pre-emptive war?

  • Like most things in life awakaman you deal with each issue on its own merits. The Church has spoken with one voice on abortion since the time of Christ.

    On the issue of preemptive war on the other hand, well, I assume some of the popes have had interesting discussions on that topic in the next life. For example John Paul II and Urban II on the First Crusade. I would love, and I mean that sincerely, to listen to that discussion.

    On divorce John Paul II seemed at one point not to want Catholic attorneys involved in them, but then in a clarification said that Catholic attorneys could be involved if their aim was to secure a good custody outcome for any minor children involved. That is one area where I personally would like some clarification since, although it makes up a miniscule portion of my practice, like most small town attorneys I am confronted with these cases from time to time.

    In regard to the death penalty we have the problem of Church teaching basically being reversed on that question under John Paul II, with a great deal of confusion now as to when the death penalty is licit and when it is not.

    I have no problem with holding the feet of Catholic pols to the fire on any number of issues, but I believe that Church teaching is the clearest on abortion, it is the issue that involves the greatest death toll each year for the innocent, and for me, as it has been since 1973, abortion will always be the overriding moral issue of our time.

  • Don:

    In regards to the 1st Crusade it is debatable as to whether it truly was pre-emptive war. First, it went beyond its initial objective of defending the Byzantine Empire and the West from the expansion of Islam and became more of a war of aggression with the reconquest of Jerusalem. Secondly, saying the 1st Crusade was fought by those exclusinvely seeking to protect Christainity is like saying the Civil War was fought exclusively over the issue of Slavery – total nonsense. It was extremely interesting that Jerusalem was a major trading center as well as an important city to Christians – just as it was an amazing coincidence that Iraq happened to have a lot of oil as well as a nasty dictator. Finally, even if we regard it as a pre-emptive war to prevent the spread of Islam given the current status of Islam in the middle east (and Europe) I would hardly say that it speaks well for pre-emptive war.

    In regard to the Death penalty did church teaching on the death penalty reverse or did it develop as a result of the growth or evolution of the modern prison system? Your argument reminds me of those offered by the Church of Christ as to why they do not have instrumental music at their services – because the early Christians did not – of course they didn’t have air conditioning or heating either. As prisons have become relatively “escape proof” and we have developed systems of rehabilitation (as I assume you agree that it is our Christian duty to do) the death penalty has become less necessary unless you want to engage in pure retribution. I know, I know . . . the deterance argument . . . but given that countries and states without the death penalty generally have less crime then those with the death penalty this is not a very good argument.

    Finally, given that JPII was rather adament in his denunciation of Catholic lawyers being involved in divorces “Roman Catholic lawyers should refuse to handle divorce cases, Pope John Paul has said.
    He said divorce was ‘spreading like a plague’ through society, and lawyers should refuse to be part of the ‘evil’.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1787106.stm

    Yes, one can engage in some self rationalization such as one is doing some good such as getting children into a good custody situation, but isn’t that the type of rationalization used by pro-choice politicians and those who vote for them, i.e. ignoring the great evil you are doing by pointing ut the small amount of good that may result.

  • well, we as catholics are so stupid. If you work, for example for Pepsi, but you don’t like Pepsi, and talk the whole day about the wonders of Coke, and try to sell Coke at every chance you have … what would your boss do? Fire you!!

    Off course, if you were coherent and a normal and rational person, you would leave Pepsi and move to Coke asap.

    This is how ratio works, this how the world is, this is how everybody in this planet feels. And what does the hierarchy do, not only in the States but anywhere else, without some honorable exceptions? They are SCARED, because the sheeps will leave the flock.. so WHAT?

    It is better to be fewer but real,rather than have many who disturb, who don’t leave us do the work of our Heavenly Father!

  • I believe the Catechism [2383] expresses well the Church’s position. Separation [divorce] is not immoral. Indeed it may be for the benefit of both parties.

    It is remarriage which is wrong.

  • Exactly, Gabriel. No off the cuff statement, even by a pope, even by a saint, can change that.

  • TomSVDP,
    The late Eunice Kennedy Shriver was notable for her pro-life advocacy within the Democratic party and her activism outside it. Her passing several weeks ago was noted on this blog and elsewhere, though there was little mention of her pro-life associations outside pro-life sources.

  • Awakaman in regard to divorce cases and Catholic lawyers this is where the ambiguity enters in:

    “Lawyers, as independent professionals, should always decline the use of their profession for an end that is contrary to justice, as is divorce. They can only cooperate in this kind of activity when, in the intention of the client, it is not directed to the break-up of the marriage, but to the securing of other legitimate effects that can only be obtained through such a judicial process in the established legal order (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2383). In this way, with their work of assisting and reconciling persons who are going through a marital crises, lawyers truly serve the rights of the person and avoid becoming mere technicians at the service of any interest whatever.”

    http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264xh.htm

    In this area I wouldn’t mind at all if the Pope told me that I could never take such a case again as it would give me an excellent reason not to do so when clients press me for my services in these types of matters. These cases are time consuming, emotionally draining, and, as I noted in my earlier comment a miniscule portion of my practice, and the only reason I get involved with them now is when a client convinces me that the kids would be better off with them, or they are being denied visitation, or they want an increase in child support, or they wish to attempt to change custody because the kids are begging to live with the client, etc. I would cheer a papal ban as giving me a good conscience deafness to their pleas, but I do not think the Pope has done that yet.

    More on your other points in a day or so when I am no longer shackled to my desk in my law office.

  • But how can civil divorce really be “contrary to justice” in cases where an innocent spouse is merely trying to remove herself or himself and any children from a situation that gravely endangers their physical, mental, or spiritual health or safety?

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

  • On the other hand, if it’s just a case of a man or woman having fallen in “love” with someone else and wanting to divorce their spouse to marry their partner in adultery, that’s another story, and a case in which I would think no observant Catholic lawyer would want to get involved.

  • You can also add into the complexity mix Elaine that clients are often less than forthcoming in this area of the law, and will frequently tell their attorney all about the misdeeds, real or imagined, of their spouse while not mentioning their own. Not infrequently this is being done in a high state of emotion, especially when the custody of children is at stake, and quick decisions often have to be made by the attorney. In hotly contested custody cases sex abuse allegations regarding the kids not infrequently enter into the case, and often the attorney has no way of knowing if the allegations are true. This is a difficult area of the law for an attorney concerned about following a moral path, and, unfortunately, not difficult at all for an attorney completely unconcerned with the morality of what is going on.

  • Pingback: digg » Blog Archive » Roundup: Obama’s Speech on Health Reform
  • Elaine,

    I don’t think even JPII would have argued that it was “evil” for a woman to divorce a husband who was beating her or molesting their children, or a man to divorce a wife who was shooting up drugs and prostituting herself to get the money for them, or had taken up witchcraft or Satan worship, etc.

    divorce is still an “evil”, but it is the guilty party who is culpable. In the same sense, war is an “evil”, and the unjust aggressor is culpable.

  • And what of Catholic priests and bishops who encourage divorces when they know that one of the parties is opposed to the divorce and they, the Catholic priests and bishops, flatly refuse to listen to them as they plead for action to support their marriage? What when this goes on for twenty years and the Holy see has completely ignored the same please?

    Some of us have seen this and have chosen to leave the Catholic Church over this. Why is there no support among “rank and file” Catholics for the plight of abandoned spouses who have to defend their marriage against both civil courts and marriage tribunals? And why, when one has defended one’s marriage before the highest courts in the Catholic Church, and watched those courts uphold that marriage, is their no action on the part of priests, bishops and the Roman Curia to canonically hold to account a spouse who has abandoned, wrongly, a faithful spouse, when the evidence is clear and in the possession of the Catholic Church(and has been for twenty years) that the marriage was usurped with the full cooperation of priests(to this day) and bishops(to this day)with mostly complete disregard for the valid, sacramental marriage?

    I think the politicians should receive a bye on this divorce/annulment issue while the Catholic Church tends to the clergy whose actions are far more harmful in this regard. Only after the Catholic Church has tended to its own, in house, facilitators of adultery and all the crimes that unjust divorce entails should it take the time to attempt to call to order catholic politicians. the house should be in order before that house attempts to call others to order.

    Just my two cents.