Posted on Feb 21, 2021
‘Wingnut’ Madison Cawthorn accused of ‘anti-Catholic bigotry’ after criticizing Vatican...
373
8
2
4
4
0
https://www.rawstory.com/madison-cawthorn [login to see] /
U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn, Republican of North Carolina, is being criticized for anti-Catholic bias – and mocked for ignorance – after attacking the Vatican over its new rule that mandates all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, unless they have a medical excuse.
U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn, Republican of North Carolina, is being criticized for anti-Catholic bias – and mocked for ignorance – after attacking the Vatican over its new rule that mandates all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, unless they have a medical excuse.
‘Wingnut’ Madison Cawthorn accused of ‘anti-Catholic bigotry’ after criticizing Vatican...
Posted from rawstory.com
North Carolina
Rome
Religion
Christianity
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
1
1
0
Holy hit piece, Batman.
First, he said it doesn't SOUND legal. Not that it WAS illegal. As in, he admits he doesn't know the legality.
Second, the whole "no law degree, no immunology degree, etc. thing." Are they really trying to say that our elected representatives are not allowed to have an opinion about anything that they are not specifically certified in? Or that the rest of us Americans, for that matter, aren't? Am I, because I do not have a degree in Constitutional Law, not allowed to cite the Constitution and argue why a particular act or law does or does not violate the Supreme Law of our Land? I mean John Jay (our first Chief Justice, for those who are not history buffs - and hey, I don't have a history degree either! But I digress)... John Jay didn't have a law degree, so I guess every SCOTUS decision (including establishing the power of the court and Judicial Review) are invalid.
Third, while the dozens of clapback tweets are relevant, it was just overkill. It was a "let's post as much as we can to make him look bad."
First, he said it doesn't SOUND legal. Not that it WAS illegal. As in, he admits he doesn't know the legality.
Second, the whole "no law degree, no immunology degree, etc. thing." Are they really trying to say that our elected representatives are not allowed to have an opinion about anything that they are not specifically certified in? Or that the rest of us Americans, for that matter, aren't? Am I, because I do not have a degree in Constitutional Law, not allowed to cite the Constitution and argue why a particular act or law does or does not violate the Supreme Law of our Land? I mean John Jay (our first Chief Justice, for those who are not history buffs - and hey, I don't have a history degree either! But I digress)... John Jay didn't have a law degree, so I guess every SCOTUS decision (including establishing the power of the court and Judicial Review) are invalid.
Third, while the dozens of clapback tweets are relevant, it was just overkill. It was a "let's post as much as we can to make him look bad."
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google