Something like that thought must have been rolling around inside the mind of
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius while she completely
choked under questioning about these legal issues by South Carolina Congressman
Trey Gowdy. Even if you disagree profoundly with Sebelius you almost have to
feel embarrassed by her pathetic performance last week at the House Education
and Workforce Committee hearing. Fortunately for Sebelius her confessions of
ignorance were completely ignored by the Mainstream Media but the
video (and below the fold)
lives on for all eternity to serve as a testament to liberal ignorance and
arrogance.
Thus far the only two news sites to cover this train wreck of a testimony by
Sebelius are the
New York Sun and the
Catholic News Agency. Here is the Sun's description of the
video:
What a remarkable glimpse of the gulf between the
administration and Congress over religious freedom is flashing around the
internet. It is a Youtube video of the secretary of health and human services,
Kathleen Sebelius, at a hearing of the House Education and Workforce Committee
hearing. She is being grilled by a Republican congressman of South Carolina,
Trey Gowdy. He asks her about her a statement she has made about seeking a
balance between believer’s rights and the contraception mandate. What
becomes clear is that there is no feel for, no thought about, but glancing
attention to the Constitution the secretary is sworn to support.
Yes, the video is "flashing around the internet" but the MSM has yet to
report on it. The Catholic New Agency provides additional details on what took
place:
HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius says she was unaware of
legal precedents confirming religious freedom, even as she sought a “balance”
between believers' rights and the contraception mandate.
“I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to understand
the nuances of the constitutional balancing tests,” Sebelius told
Representative Trey Gowdy (R–SC) during an April 26 hearing.
In her responses to subsequent questions, the secretary
admitted she was unaware of Supreme Court cases stretching back several decades,
in which religious believers' rights against government intrusion were upheld by
the court.
Just how amazingly "unaware" Sebelius was can be seen later in the
report:
Gowdy cited the “rational basis” test – which involves the
legitimacy of a state's interest in legislation – as well as the criteria of
“intermediate scrutiny” and “strict scrutiny,” which judges apply in order to
gauge a law's relevance to fundamental state concerns.
When Sebelius responded that she did not understand the
“nuances” of these tests, she was pressed by Gowdy to explain why she regarded
the contraception mandate as constitutionally valid. The rule has been
criticized for requiring religious groups to cooperate in providing
sterilization and abortifacients.
“This mandate is going to wind up in the Supreme Court,” the
South Carolina representative declared.
“We can talk about the politics all we want to. I want to
talk about the law,” he told Sebelius. “I want to talk about balancing religious
liberty with whatever else you think it's appropriate to balance it with –
because you used the word 'balance.'”
“Which of those three tests is the appropriate test to use
when considering religious liberty?”
“I am not going to wade into constitutional law,”
Sebelius responded. “We are implementing the (health care reform) law
that was passed by the Congress, signed by the president, which directed our
department to develop a package of preventive health services for women.”
Sebelius said she agreed with the statement that government
could not “force certain religious beliefs on its citizens.” When asked why this
could not happen, she cited “the separation of church and state,” a phrase not
found in the U.S. Constitution.
“It's the Constitution,” Gowdy replied, citing the First
Amendment which guarantees the “free exercise of religion.”
Sebelius also agreed with Gowdy's statement that government
could not “decide which religious beliefs are acceptable and not acceptable.”
This, she acknowledged, is “part of our Constitution.”
“So, before this rule was promulgated,” Gowdy
continued, referring to the federal contraception mandate, “did you read any of
the Supreme Court cases on religious liberty?”
“I did not,” Sebelius responded.
...“So when a state said, 'You have to send your children to
school until a certain age,' and a religious group objected because they did not
want to send their children to school until that certain age, do you know who
won?” he asked. “It went to the Supreme Court.”
The 1970s case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, is considered a landmark
in U.S. jurisprudence. Sebelius said she did not know its outcome. “The
religious group won,” Gowdy informed her.
“I think the state has a compelling interest in banning
animal sacrifice,” he continued. “When a state banned the practice of animal
sacrifice and a religious group objected, it went to the Supreme Court. Do you
know who won that?”
“I do not, sir,” Sebelius responded. She was again informed
that the religious group prevailed, in the 1993 case of Church of Lukumi Babalu
Aye v. Hialeah.
“When a religious group objected to having a certain license
tag on their cars, it went to the Supreme Court,” Gowdy said, in an apparent
reference to the 1976 case of Wooley v. Maynard. “Do you know who won?”
Sebelius said she was unaware of this outcome as well. “The
religious group won,” Gowdy told her.
The congressman also noted the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's recent 9-0 loss in the Supreme Court. The commission accused a
Lutheran church and school of retaliatory firing, but lost the case when all
nine justices upheld the school's right to choose employees on religious
grounds.
“So when you say you 'balanced' things,” Gowdy said, “can
you see why I might be seeking a constitutional balancing, instead of any other
kind?”
“I do,” Sebelius said, “and I defer to our lawyers to give
me good advice on the Constitution. I do not pretend to be a constitutional
lawyer.”
“Is there a legal memo that you relied on?” Gowdy
asked. “At least when Attorney General Holder made his recess appointments,
there was a legal memo that he relied on. Is there one that you can share with
us?”
“Attorney General Holder clearly runs the Justice
Department and lives in a world of legal memos,” Sebelius responded, saying she
“relied on discussions.”
And apparently Sebelius lives in a world of liberal bubbles divorced from
legal reality.
Please be sure to watch the
video to properly savor the full flavor of the comedy and
pathos, along with irritation, presented by Sebelius. Remember Kathleen, thanks
to your MSM allies your embarrassing "command performance" on Capitol Hill
remains a secret...por ahora.
p.s. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah? I have to remember that case
just for the name.
