Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:57 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Grand Inquisitor Cory Booker

Cory Booker brings in the Inquisition on a judicial nominee, giving her a religious test in direct violation of Article VI of the US Constitution.

What is he trying to prove?

I also thought the way he handled the Kavanaugh questioning was pure showmanship, and inappropriate showmanship at that.

The guy is an ignorant, self-aggrandizing windbag if you ask me.
  #2  
Old 02-07-2019, 04:32 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,944
Well, I guess he's lost your vote, then?

And of course the Constitution doesn't say that Senators can't vote against a nominee because the nominee is a religious zealot, any more than it says that citizens can't take a candidate's religion into account when choosing who to vote for. The "no religious test" just means that the government can't pass laws requiring all candidates/nominees for office to subscribe to a particular religion.

Stupid right-wing talking point of the day debunked.
  #3  
Old 02-07-2019, 04:54 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Well, I guess he's lost your vote, then?

And of course the Constitution doesn't say that Senators can't vote against a nominee because the nominee is a religious zealot, any more than it says that citizens can't take a candidate's religion into account when choosing who to vote for. The "no religious test" just means that the government can't pass laws requiring all candidates/nominees for office to subscribe to a particular religion.

Stupid right-wing talking point of the day debunked.
I'm not entirely opposed to what you are saying, but it is a bit different. Booker is a senator and an agent of the United States government, not Farmer John voting for someone.

I can see the beginnings of an argument that as a senator if you will not vote for a judicial nominee because of his religion, then that is a religious test. But does the opinion of one senator make a violation of the Constitution? What about 51?

What if 51 senators agreed to never confirm a judicial nominee who adhered to the Second Presbylutheran Church, Reformation of 1958? It seems that there is now a religious test for any judicial office.
  #4  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:08 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not entirely opposed to what you are saying, but it is a bit different. Booker is a senator and an agent of the United States government, not Farmer John voting for someone.

I can see the beginnings of an argument that as a senator if you will not vote for a judicial nominee because of his religion, then that is a religious test. But does the opinion of one senator make a violation of the Constitution? What about 51?

What if 51 senators agreed to never confirm a judicial nominee who adhered to the Second Presbylutheran Church, Reformation of 1958? It seems that there is now a religious test for any judicial office.
I'm not entirely sure, but I see no problem with 51 Senators who wouldn't want to confirm a judge who thinks gay marriage is a sin.

There are (I hope) already 51 Senators who would reject a nominee that believed interracial marriage was a sin. If one particular sect held that view, then members of that religion would be out of luck. I don't see a Constitutional violation.
  #5  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:10 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not entirely opposed to what you are saying, but it is a bit different. Booker is a senator and an agent of the United States government, not Farmer John voting for someone.

I can see the beginnings of an argument that as a senator if you will not vote for a judicial nominee because of his religion, then that is a religious test. But does the opinion of one senator make a violation of the Constitution? What about 51?

What if 51 senators agreed to never confirm a judicial nominee who adhered to the Second Presbylutheran Church, Reformation of 1958? It seems that there is now a religious test for any judicial office.
That would be completely permissible. If the public disapproved of this discrimination against Presbylutherans, they could vote those Senators out of office. What is forbidden is to actually pass a law saying that Presbylutherans are ineligible for office.

Also, this candidate isn't being discriminated against because of her religion, she's being discriminated against because she (purportedly) believes that homosexuality is immoral. I agree that people who hold that repugnant view have no place in public office, and I don't care if her justification is religious or not, and if it is, I don't care which particular religion it is.
  #6  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:12 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I agree that people who hold that repugnant view have no place in public office, and I don't care if her justification is religious or not, and if it is, I don't care which particular religion it is.
Thank you for your response.
  #7  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:17 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
That would be completely permissible. If the public disapproved of this discrimination against Presbylutherans, they could vote those Senators out of office. What is forbidden is to actually pass a law saying that Presbylutherans are ineligible for office.

Also, this candidate isn't being discriminated against because of her religion, she's being discriminated against because she (purportedly) believes that homosexuality is immoral. I agree that people who hold that repugnant view have no place in public office, and I don't care if her justification is religious or not, and if it is, I don't care which particular religion it is.
But this is bootstrapping. You have created a religious test.

It is no different than those in the Jim Crow south saying that blacks are PERFECTLY allowed to vote, so long as their grandfathers were eligible to vote. See, it isn't a racial test, it is a grandfather vote test!

You are getting in the backdoor what you cannot get in the front.
  #8  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:44 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But this is bootstrapping. You have created a religious test.

It is no different than those in the Jim Crow south saying that blacks are PERFECTLY allowed to vote, so long as their grandfathers were eligible to vote. See, it isn't a racial test, it is a grandfather vote test!

You are getting in the backdoor what you cannot get in the front.
You honestly think this is a relevant analogy?

Denying blacks the vote because their grandfathers were ineligible to vote was depriving them of a basic citizenship right due to something over which they had zero control.

Denying a devout Christian a judicial post because she believes her Christianity obliges them to view homosexuality as immoral is
  1. not denying her a basic right of citizenship, and
  2. an action based on a belief she can change, if she wishes to
I thought someone would slap this bullshit down sooner in the thread, but maybe it was just too easy.
  #9  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:00 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And of course the Constitution doesn't say that Senators can't vote against a nominee because the nominee is a religious zealot, any more than it says that citizens can't take a candidate's religion into account when choosing who to vote for. The "no religious test" just means that the government can't pass laws requiring all candidates/nominees for office to subscribe to a particular religion.
I realize that the judicial nomination process is distinct from both elections and typical employee hiring.

It would be very difficult to prove that Booker is breaking any laws, but I just think his line of questioning, combined with his past performances (and yes, they are performances) reveals a lot about his character (lacking) and his priorities (self promotion).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Stupid right-wing talking point of the day debunked.
Just because the one being criticized is a Democrat does not mean that the one doing the criticizing is a right-winger.
  #10  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:45 PM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And of course the Constitution doesn't say that Senators can't vote against a nominee because the nominee is a religious zealot, any more than it says that citizens can't take a candidate's religion into account when choosing who to vote for.
I agree. Booker's behavior is dumb, but not unconstitutional. He does this kind of !%$& all the time at confirmation hearings, and also at the Ford/Kavanaugh testimony. Kamala Harris does so too. I guess when the primaries roll around, we'll learn whether it's what Democratic voters want.
__________________
-ITR Champion

"I am extremely proud of my religion." - G. K. Chesterton
  #11  
Old 02-07-2019, 04:35 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
...giving her a religious test in direct violation of Article VI of the US Constitution...
"Do you personally believe that X is immoral" is not a religious test, and is in no way a violation of law.
  #12  
Old 02-07-2019, 04:59 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
"Do you personally believe that X is immoral" is not a religious test, and is in no way a violation of law.
It absolutely could be. Many sects of Christianity believe that homosexuality is immoral. You cannot game the system that way. You might as well say that any Muslim can hold political office so long as he eats pork or believes that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.

If A and B is what makes up C, you cannot get around discriminating against C by "merely" discriminating against A. By definition you have discriminated against C.
  #13  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:25 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It absolutely could be. Many sects of Christianity believe that homosexuality is immoral. You cannot game the system that way. You might as well say that any Muslim can hold political office so long as he eats pork or believes that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.

If A and B is what makes up C, you cannot get around discriminating against C by "merely" discriminating against A. By definition you have discriminated against C.
But what if a pig farmer says they will only vote for people who eat pork? In your view, is that person practicing religious discrimination against Muslims? As long as that person wouldn't object to voting for a nonobservant Muslim, I don't think he is, despite the fact that his litmus test would exclude the vast majority of Muslims and Jews, and hardly anyone else (although it would exclude Cory Booker!).

Many sects of Christianity do hold that belief, and many others don't. All sects contain individuals who differ from their church's "official" stance. What would be really discriminatory would be to ask someone what church they attend, and assume based on their answer that you know their opinions on homosexuality (or anything else). Booker acted correctly, in that he was asking about the nominee's personal beliefs, not her denominational affiliation.
  #14  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:33 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Booker acted correctly, in that he was asking about the nominee's personal beliefs, not her denominational affiliation.
Right. In that way, you can use your personal prejudice against those who hold to traditional morality without breaking the law, regardless of whether or not the person in question would adhere to the law in his or her rulings.
  #15  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:39 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Right. In that way, you can use your personal prejudice against those who hold to traditional morality without breaking the law, regardless of whether or not the person in question would adhere to the law in his or her rulings.
Again, dude, he wouldn't be breaking the law if he asked her what church she attended.

And if it were established that she was a bigot, it would then become relevant to examine her record to see if that bigotry had manifested itself in her rulings. Establishing whether or not she is, in fact, a bigot is the first step in that process. If she had a long-established record of ruling in accordance with the law, I personally wouldn't refuse to seat her based solely on her personal religious beliefs. But again, if someone did take the position that her beliefs alone are enough to disqualify her, that person would not be violating the law by taking that position.
  #16  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:49 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
But what if a pig farmer says they will only vote for people who eat pork? In your view, is that person practicing religious discrimination against Muslims? As long as that person wouldn't object to voting for a nonobservant Muslim, I don't think he is, despite the fact that his litmus test would exclude the vast majority of Muslims and Jews, and hardly anyone else (although it would exclude Cory Booker!).
First, the pig farmer is allowed to be as discriminatory as he wants. He is not an agent of the government. He can declare, before entering the polls, that he will never vote for a Muslim, and he can go in and cast his vote and it counts the same as yours or mine.

If a government farmer did the same thing, I could see it being a "disparate impact" case. It is similar to the voter ID cases. Everyone, black or white, must have an ID to vote, but if it is shown that the policy, neutral on its face hurts others because of a protected class, then it is unlawful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Many sects of Christianity do hold that belief, and many others don't. All sects contain individuals who differ from their church's "official" stance. What would be really discriminatory would be to ask someone what church they attend, and assume based on their answer that you know their opinions on homosexuality (or anything else). Booker acted correctly, in that he was asking about the nominee's personal beliefs, not her denominational affiliation.
What you are saying is that you can belong to any religion or sect that you want so long as you disavow what is part of what that sect believes is an important part of its faith.

From your comments, I think you would agree that if a law was passed saying that no Southern Baptists could hold office, you would strike that down. But you readily encourage barring people from office who believe that homosexuality is immoral.

Those lines are almost parallel. Sure, there may be some Southern Baptists that buck the church doctrine, but then your argument boils down to something along the lines of that you can belong to any religious group you want and can hold public office so long as you do not follow the tenets of your religion.

Frankly, that is the furthest thing from religious freedom imaginable. You can be a Jew so long as you celebrate Easter or you can be an atheist so long as you tithe to any local church.
  #17  
Old 02-07-2019, 06:30 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
First, the pig farmer is allowed to be as discriminatory as he wants. He is not an agent of the government. He can declare, before entering the polls, that he will never vote for a Muslim, and he can go in and cast his vote and it counts the same as yours or mine.

If a government farmer did the same thing, I could see it being a "disparate impact" case. It is similar to the voter ID cases. Everyone, black or white, must have an ID to vote, but if it is shown that the policy, neutral on its face hurts others because of a protected class, then it is unlawful.



What you are saying is that you can belong to any religion or sect that you want so long as you disavow what is part of what that sect believes is an important part of its faith.

From your comments, I think you would agree that if a law was passed saying that no Southern Baptists could hold office, you would strike that down. But you readily encourage barring people from office who believe that homosexuality is immoral.

Those lines are almost parallel. Sure, there may be some Southern Baptists that buck the church doctrine, but then your argument boils down to something along the lines of that you can belong to any religious group you want and can hold public office so long as you do not follow the tenets of your religion.

Frankly, that is the furthest thing from religious freedom imaginable. You can be a Jew so long as you celebrate Easter or you can be an atheist so long as you tithe to any local church.
Religious freedom has nothing to do with it. People have the right to believe whatever they want. They don't have a right to hold public office. That's a privilege.

With regard to the pig farmer, I didn't ask you whether he has the legal right to only vote for pork-eaters. Everyone agrees that he does. I asked you if you would consider him to be practicing religious discrimination.

How about a Muslim jihadist who believes that all non-Muslims ought to be killed or forced to convert? Do you think it would be appropriate for such a person to be seated on a Federal court, as long as they promised not to let their beliefs affect their judicial decisions? Do you think it would be reasonable to say that someone who objected to that appointment was practicing illegitimate religious discrimination?
  #18  
Old 02-07-2019, 07:04 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss KarlGauss is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What you are saying is that you can belong to any religion or sect that you want so long as you disavow what is part of what that sect believes is an important part of its faith.
Are you really saying that those whose religious beliefs would engender prejudice (or worse) against those of a different religion, should be allowed to do so?
  #19  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:18 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What you are saying is that you can belong to any religion or sect that you want so long as you disavow what is part of what that sect believes is an important part of its faith.
Well, yes. We let people worship Quetzalcoatl, but they have to forego the whole "offering of still-beating hearts" angle.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #20  
Old 02-07-2019, 06:35 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It absolutely could be. Many sects of Christianity believe that homosexuality is immoral.
You seem to be implying that only Christianity has this issue; are you implying that?
  #21  
Old 02-07-2019, 08:22 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It absolutely could be. Many sects of Christianity believe that homosexuality is immoral. You cannot game the system that way.
Imagine a judicial applicant who had in the past participated in virulently racist demonstrations. Would you be okay with asking this applicant, "Do you believe that nonwhite people should be murdered and that the United States should grant rights only to white people?"

Because that's a religious position held by the World Church of the Creator--indeed, it's just about their only position. And courts have held it to be a religiously-protected position.

Game the system indeed. If someone has a fucked up belief, I don't give a shit what supernatural reason they give for holding the fucked up belief. They shouldn't have power over others.
  #22  
Old 02-07-2019, 08:57 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
... Many sects of Christianity believe that homosexuality is immoral. You cannot game the system that way. You might as well say that any Muslim can hold political office so long as he eats pork or believes that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.

..
Ok, so lets say that Republicans nomiate a Muslim to the court, and then...
alright, even I couldn't keep a straight face for that one. Nevermind.
  #23  
Old 02-07-2019, 04:45 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post

The guy is an ignorant, self-aggrandizing windbag if you ask me.
Nah. Too easy.
  #24  
Old 02-07-2019, 04:58 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,516
I'm sorry, I must have missed where any senator said they would not vote to confirm any nominee because of that nominee's religion.
  #25  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:01 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
I'm sorry, I must have missed where any senator said they would not vote to confirm any nominee because of that nominee's religion.
Just speculation of course, but I wonder what the Senate's reaction would have been if the nominee had stated "yes, I believe that gay sex is immoral".

What should the Senate's reaction be to an answer like that?
  #26  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:07 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Just speculation of course, but I wonder what the Senate's reaction would have been if the nominee had stated "yes, I believe that gay sex is immoral".

What should the Senate's reaction be to an answer like that?
Right. It is an unusual and irrelevant question. If I am a judge, my job is to apply the law and apply precedent faithfully. If Alabama passes a gay marriage license fee of $500, but it is only $50 for a heterosexual couple, I have to look at Obergefell and strike that law down regardless of my own personal belief in the morality of gay sex or gay marriage.

It seems that Booker and his ilk believe that law is exactly that: judges applying personal preferences to cases.
  #27  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:13 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Right. It is an unusual and irrelevant question. If I am a judge, my job is to apply the law and apply precedent faithfully. If Alabama passes a gay marriage license fee of $500, but it is only $50 for a heterosexual couple, I have to look at Obergefell and strike that law down regardless of my own personal belief in the morality of gay sex or gay marriage.

It seems that Booker and his ilk believe that law is exactly that: judges applying personal preferences to cases.
Can you understand why gay people might feel more comfortable with a judge who wouldn't have to overcome any personal prejudices in order to follow the law?
  #28  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:15 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Can you understand why gay people might feel more comfortable with a judge who wouldn't have to overcome any personal prejudices in order to follow the law?
Adhering to a moral code ≠ having a personal prejudice.

ETA: Nor does it have anything to do with following the law

Last edited by EscAlaMike; 02-07-2019 at 05:17 PM.
  #29  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:23 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Can you understand why gay people might feel more comfortable with a judge who wouldn't have to overcome any personal prejudices in order to follow the law?
Judges do that all of the time. I'm sure that every judge that has ever been confirmed is "personally prejudiced" against rape and murder, but they have to judge the validity of search warrants that may set a murderer and rapist free. You don't think that they get a fair shake in the judicial process?
  #30  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:34 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,636
Religion isn't a free pass to get away with anything you want. We aren't discriminating against the Sikh when we don't allow knives on planes. We aren't discriminating against Jews or Muslims by serving pork at schools and government buildings (and I say that as someone who, while not religious, doesn't eat pork for cultural reasons). And we aren't discriminating against Christians by taking a stand against bigotry, on the court or elsewhere.

Religion is no excuse for bigotry, and a Christian using his faith as an excuse to mistreat homosexuals should be just as inexcusable as a murderer claiming he was only killing for Quetzlcoatl.
  #31  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:07 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It absolutely could be. Many sects of Christianity believe that homosexuality is immoral. You cannot game the system that way. You might as well say that any Muslim can hold political office so long as he eats pork or believes that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.

If A and B is what makes up C, you cannot get around discriminating against C by "merely" discriminating against A. By definition you have discriminated against C.
I get that one might choose to think the worst of Booker for many reasons, but you're assuming discrimination where there is none.

Again, asking a question about personal morals is not a violation of the Constitution.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Just speculation of course, but I wonder what the Senate's reaction would have been if the nominee had stated "yes, I believe that gay sex is immoral".

What should the Senate's reaction be to an answer like that?
"What steps have you taken in the past, and if your nomination is approved what steps will you take in the future, to ensure that those personal beliefs do not interfere with your judicial decision making?"
  #32  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:03 PM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,593
he is trying to appeal to the far left . With this many people running to the left I wonder if whoever is the nominee this year they may make Sanders look like a John Bircher
  #33  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:48 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,944
Gay rights good, sexual assault bad? I personally don't think I need to wait for the primaries to form an opinion on how Democratic voters feel about those issues.
  #34  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:53 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Cory Booker brings in the Inquisition on a judicial nominee, giving her a religious test in direct violation of Article VI of the US Constitution.

What is he trying to prove?

I also thought the way he handled the Kavanaugh questioning was pure showmanship, and inappropriate showmanship at that.

The guy is an ignorant, self-aggrandizing windbag if you ask me.
Iím glad we can count on your support for appointing more members of the Nation of Islam to the bench.
  #35  
Old 02-07-2019, 06:46 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
...
What is he trying to prove?
...
OK, I got this one. Easy easy easy. He's trying to prove what the nominee thinks about gay people.
  #36  
Old 02-07-2019, 08:43 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,316
Yawn, it's the old "You're bigoted against bigoted people!" thing again.

Never mind that Republicans are really actually doing the things you're pretending Democrats do.
  #37  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:41 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
It was a statement. The question was rhetorical in order to state the issue.
  #38  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:44 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,222
The issue is rhetorical. Gotcha.
  #39  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:52 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,034
I love when people are completely transparent but believe they're pulling off some kind of trick...
  #40  
Old 02-07-2019, 10:28 PM
Bayaker Bayaker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: A town on Galveston Bay
Posts: 2,496
Well, this gay man happens to be a practicing Catholic, and all sex outside marriage is a sin. That is marriage as a Sacrament of the Church. Civil marriage is a completely different thing. People in common-law marriages are living in a state of sin according to most(all?) denominations but that doesn't make them bad people, and no one expects them to be discriminated against in a court of law. Civil marriage for gay couples(or any couple) is a good thing for lots of legal and financial reasons but that does not preclude it being sinful. Am I prejudiced against myself because I think the piece of paper/legal designation from the county doesn't constitute a real, sacramental, marriage?
Suppose Senator Booker had asked if eating meat on Good Friday was a sin and Neomi Rao had replied in the affirmative - would that mean no one would believe she was capable of applying the law fairly to someone who does not fast and abstain?
  #41  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:07 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayaker View Post
Well, this gay man happens to be a practicing Catholic, and all sex outside marriage is a sin. That is marriage as a Sacrament of the Church. Civil marriage is a completely different thing. People in common-law marriages are living in a state of sin according to most(all?) denominations but that doesn't make them bad people, and no one expects them to be discriminated against in a court of law.
Of course not. Because most of those couples are heterosexual.

Quote:
Civil marriage for gay couples(or any couple) is a good thing...
I believe the official stance of your church disagrees, does it not? How much did the Catholic church pour into the Prop 8 campaign in California again?

Look, my family is Irish Catholic. My mom goes to mass three times a week. She's also pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and an ardent feminist. I'm not saying that Catholics are automatically homophobes: I get that most American Catholics are significantly more moral than the Church they attend. But when someone's up for a position where they'll have significant influence over the rights of a large number of citizens, the fact that they profess a faith that is actively fighting against our rights is a significant concern - doubly so when her political association teaches exactly the same thing. Booker is absolutely right to question her on this issue.
  #42  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:39 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayaker View Post
Suppose Senator Booker had asked if eating meat on Good Friday was a sin and Neomi Rao had replied in the affirmative - would that mean no one would believe she was capable of applying the law fairly to someone who does not fast and abstain?
There is a difference between that which you consider wrong for yourself and that you consider wrong for others. When someone asks if you think eating meat is wrong, they usually mean "for yourself." I would not assume that someone who said that "yes, eating meat on Good Friday is wrong" to mean "it is wrong even for people who don't adhere to my religion." If they did think so, then I would be concerned. (Fortunately, this is not a big issue, so they could probably still be a relatively unbiased judge, as long as they recuse themselves from meat cases.)

On the other hand, everything about the claim that gay marriage is a sin is about other people, outside of your religion. It's all about controlling those people. As such, if someone says they don't think gay marriage is a sin, then I'm pretty sure they mean "I believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry."

And that latter belief is a problem. Sure, you can enforce the law regardless of your beliefs. But that's not automatic. It is a bias, and one that should be scrutinized heavily. Even if you will enforce the law, your beliefs still inform what you do, and so thinking SSM is wrong can lead to you siding against it in gray area cases.

It could, for instance, lead to allowing religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws about gay people--something that the "gay marriage is sinful" people seem to be trying for. It's why they are trying to make it where cake-makers can refuse to make cakes for gay weddings, even if that cake is identical to one they would make for a straight wedding.

We want judges who are biased towards the law. The law says that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage. So we want people who are biased towards thinking that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage morally. Those have the best chance of enforcing the law fairly.

The thing about prejudice is that it prevents people from making the rational choice, without knowing that's what they are doing. That's why assuming judges can just put aside their biases is a bad idea. People largely don't know when their bias is kicking in.

Last edited by BigT; 02-08-2019 at 01:40 AM.
  #43  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:21 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,316
We really need a good Doctor of the Church right about now, someone who would realize that a gay man marrying a woman would not be a sacramentally valid marriage, by the traditional standards of sacramental marriage, but that two gay men marrying each other would be.
  #44  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:32 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
We really need a good Doctor of the Church right about now, someone who would realize that a gay man marrying a woman would not be a sacramentally valid marriage, by the traditional standards of sacramental marriage, but that two gay men marrying each other would be.
I believe you just nominated yourself Chronos.
  #45  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:26 AM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,593
Elena Kagan had not been a judge before joining the Supreme Court so it does happen but it's not common. She was a law professor and dean of Harvard law school. The other 8 were judges before joining the court.
  #46  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:37 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Elena Kagan had not been a judge before joining the Supreme Court so it does happen but it's not common. She was a law professor and dean of Harvard law school. The other 8 were judges before joining the court.
She was also Solicitor General of the United States. It doesn't seem that Ms. Rao has any experience at all inside a courtroom, other than being a clerk for a couple judges.
  #47  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:27 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,526
Mr. Booker has reviewed history as it applies to humble, self-effacing politicians who avoid the spotlight. He has reached the obvious conclusion, and acts accordingly. Persons of modest decorum. such as myself and the OP, are naturally suspicious.
  #48  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:52 PM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,414
How have we got this far without someone saying "Nobody expects the Booker Inquisition!"?

Last edited by Gyrate; 02-08-2019 at 01:53 PM.
  #49  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:07 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
How have we got this far without someone saying "Nobody expects the Booker Inquisition!"?
"Cardinal Harris ... bring out -- The Comfy Chair!"

Music sting!

__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #50  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:10 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,316
Myself, I've been waiting for a Zork reference.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017