Acting Attorney General against Jews, Muslims and Atheists being judges

[Czarcasm]

Story here.

“And while I agree that I want to understand their judicial philosophy and whether they understand natural law and natural rights and then the founding documents and how they fit together…I don’t think that gets us far enough because natural law oftentfimes is used from the eye of the beholder," he continued. "What I’d like to see is things like their worldview.… Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? I think that is very important.”
The moderator interrupted Whitaker and asked “Levitical or New Testament?” which is an indirect way of asking whether people of the Jewish faith should be banned from serving as federal judges.
“I’m a New Testament,” responded Whitaker to laughter. “And what I know is as long as they have that [New Testament] worldview that they’ll be a good judge.”
Under those guidelines, Whitaker would also question the ability of Muslim-Americans and other non-Christian Americans to sit on the federal bench.

It seems that while his main beef is with atheists having any judicial authority, his bigotry extends to any others that do not hold his New Testament beliefs.

[andros]

To be rhetorically fair, he said that people with a Christian worldview will automatically be good judges, but not that it’s impossible for people without that worldview to also be be good judges.

I don’t want the above to be considered as support in any sense for this huckster SOB.

[Czarcasm]

To be fair, he said that just following “Natural Law” didn’t go far enough.

[The_Tooth]

Is no one associated with the Republican Party these days normal?

[kenobi_65]

@The_Tooth

Is no one associated with the Republican Party these days normal?

As Stephen Colbert described in last night’s show (and as described in this Washington Post opinion piece), Whitaker’s former company, World Patent Marketing (he was, as I understand it, on the advisory board, did legal work for them, and appeared as a spokesman) was seriously out there:

• They claimed that DNA evidence proving Bigfoot’s existence had been discovered (and sold Bigfoot merchandise on their website)
• Asserted that time travel could be achieved within the next decade, and attempted to raise funds for research on the matter
• Applied for a patent for an “extra-deep” toilet, so that well-endowed men wouldn’t have to worry about their penises winding up in the toilet’s water when they used it.

And, yes, this was the same company which finally shut down after paying a $26 million settlement for fraud.

:smack:

[Icarus]

I have long held that our current laws and court decisions privilege Christian thought, and I would welcome a thorough review intended to neutralize those effects (similar to efforts to reform language to be gender neutral - a poor example).

I go back to the first statement in the Amendment 1 to the US Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Unfortunately, in the discussion at hand, Amendment 1 specifically instructs that it is Congress making of laws that is being constrained. Nothing is stated regarding the courts interpreting the law, or judges applying their religious philosophies.

Alas, I see this as a gap that allows statements like the one from Whitaker.

[John_Mace]

@The_Tooth

Is no one associated with the Republican Party these days normal?

Define “normal”. I certainly don’t agree with this guy, but I suspect his views would poll well in the US. It is not outside the norm, as much as many of us would like it to be.

[The_Tooth]

Not being part of a white slavery ring like Tim Nolan or a time-travel scammer like this guy would go a long way to being normal.

[Little_Nemo]

@andros

To be rhetorically fair, he said that people with a Christian worldview will automatically be good judges, but not that it’s impossible for people without that worldview to also be be good judges.

I suspect his position is that as long as he expresses a theoretical willingness to appoint a non-Christian judge it’s okay if he never gets around to actually appointing one.

[mikecurtis]

Does the AG appoint judges?

mc

[John_Mace]

@Icarus

I have long held that our current laws and court decisions privilege Christian thought, and I would welcome a thorough review intended to neutralize those effects (similar to efforts to reform language to be gender neutral - a poor example).

I go back to the first statement in the Amendment 1 to the US Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Unfortunately, in the discussion at hand, Amendment 1 specifically instructs that it is Congress making of laws that is being constrained. Nothing is stated regarding the courts interpreting the law, or judges applying their religious philosophies.

Alas, I see this as a gap that allows statements like the one from Whitaker.

Statements like his are covered by the free speech clause, not the establishment clause. And you’re wrong about there being a gap. All 3 branches are constrained by the Lemon Test, which goes well beyond a constraint solely on Congress to, literally, establish religion:

The Court’s decision in this case established the “Lemon test” (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[4] which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

• The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
• The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
• The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)
  Factors.
  • Character and purpose of institution benefited.
  • Nature of aid the state provides.
  • Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.

[andros]

@mikecurtis

Does the AG appoint judges?

mc

No.

No one is discussing his ability as putative acting AG to nominate judges. We are discussing his biases toward a particular faith tradition, which are quite arguably relevant to his ability to appropriately execute the duties required of him.

And also that he is a lying, predatory, two-bit huckster shitbag.

[DrDeth]

@kenobi_65

• Applied for a patent for an “extra-deep” toilet, so that well-endowed men wouldn’t have to worry about their penises winding up in the toilet’s water when they used it.

At Last!

[Little_Nemo]

@mikecurtis

Does the AG appoint judges?

Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. But the Attorney General usually has a lot of influence in the process.

[wolfpup]

@kenobi_65

As Stephen Colbert described in last night’s show (and as described in this Washington Post opinion piece), Whitaker’s former company, World Patent Marketing (he was, as I understand it, on the advisory board, did legal work for them, and appeared as a spokesman) was seriously out there:

• They claimed that DNA evidence proving Bigfoot’s existence had been discovered (and sold Bigfoot merchandise on their website)
• Asserted that time travel could be achieved within the next decade, and attempted to raise funds for research on the matter
• Applied for a patent for an “extra-deep” toilet, so that well-endowed men wouldn’t have to worry about their penises winding up in the toilet’s water when they used it.

And, yes, this was the same company which finally shut down after paying a $26 million settlement for fraud.

:smack:

I don’t see a problem with this. Traveling back in time with my enormous penis to discover wondrous mythical creatures sounds like an interesting hobby. Since they’ve already proven that Bigfoot exists and are taking real money for time travel research, I don’t see any risk here.

The only serious problem I see is that this crackpot is the acting AG. I thought Sessions was about as low as anyone could go, but Trump seems to have a near infinite supply of crackpots and loons, each apparently crazier than the last. I didn’t know there were that many crazies in the entire country, yet he seems to have a monopoly on all of them. It’s like he had a direct line to an insane asylum.

[mikecurtis]

@Little_Nemo

I suspect his position is that as long as he expresses a theoretical willingness to appoint a non-Christian judge it’s okay if he never gets around to actually appointing one.

@andros

No.

No one is discussing his ability as putative acting AG to nominate judges. We are discussing his biases toward a particular faith tradition, which are quite arguably relevant to his ability to appropriately execute the duties required of him.

And also that he is a lying, predatory, two-bit huckster shitbag.

did i read it wrong?

mc