About Us

EscAlaMike · 02-07-2019, 03:57 PM

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.

Thing Fish · 02-07-2019, 04:32 PM

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.

UltraVires · 02-07-2019, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

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.

Procrustus · 02-07-2019, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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.

Thing Fish · 02-07-2019, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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.

EscAlaMike · 02-07-2019, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

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.

UltraVires · 02-07-2019, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

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.

Akaj · 02-08-2019, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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

not denying her a basic right of citizenship, and
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.

EscAlaMike · 02-07-2019, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

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

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.

ITR champion · 02-07-2019, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

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.

andros · 02-07-2019, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscAlaMike

...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.

UltraVires · 02-07-2019, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andros

"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.

Thing Fish · 02-07-2019, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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.

EscAlaMike · 02-07-2019, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

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.

Thing Fish · 02-07-2019, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscAlaMike

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.

UltraVires · 02-07-2019, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

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

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.

Thing Fish · 02-07-2019, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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?

KarlGauss · 02-07-2019, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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?

Steve MB · 02-08-2019, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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.

Snowboarder Bo · 02-07-2019, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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?

Left Hand of Dorkness · 02-07-2019, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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.

bobot · 02-07-2019, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

... 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.

silenus · 02-07-2019, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscAlaMike

The guy is an ignorant, self-aggrandizing windbag if you ask me.

Nah. Too easy.

andros · 02-07-2019, 04:58 PM

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.

EscAlaMike · 02-07-2019, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andros

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?

UltraVires · 02-07-2019, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscAlaMike

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.

Thing Fish · 02-07-2019, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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?

EscAlaMike · 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

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

UltraVires · 02-07-2019, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish

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?

Babale · 02-08-2019, 04:34 PM

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.

andros · 02-07-2019, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires

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

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?"

Bijou Drains · 02-07-2019, 05:03 PM

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

Thing Fish · 02-07-2019, 05:48 PM

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.

Ravenman · 02-07-2019, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscAlaMike

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.

I’m glad we can count on your support for appointing more members of the Nation of Islam to the bench.

bobot · 02-07-2019, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscAlaMike

...
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.

Chronos · 02-07-2019, 08:43 PM

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.

EscAlaMike · 02-07-2019, 09:41 PM

It was a statement. The question was rhetorical in order to state the issue.

bobot · 02-07-2019, 09:44 PM

The issue is rhetorical. Gotcha.

jayjay · 02-07-2019, 09:52 PM

I love when people are completely transparent but believe they're pulling off some kind of trick...

Bayaker · 02-07-2019, 10:28 PM

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?

Miller · 02-08-2019, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bayaker

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.

BigT · 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bayaker

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.

Chronos · 02-08-2019, 08:21 AM

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.

EscAlaMike · 02-08-2019, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos

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.

Bijou Drains · 02-08-2019, 08:26 AM

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.

Ravenman · 02-08-2019, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains

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.

elucidator · 02-08-2019, 11:27 AM

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.