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.
Well, I guess he’s lost your vote, then?:rolleyes:
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.
“Do you personally believe that X is immoral” is not a religious test, and is in no way a violation of law.
Nah. Too easy.
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 sorry, I must have missed where any senator said they would not vote to confirm any nominee because of that nominee’s religion.
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 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).
Just because the one being criticized is a Democrat does not mean that the one doing the criticizing is a right-winger.
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?
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 
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.
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.
“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?”
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.
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.
Thank you for your response.
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
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.
What if the particular moral code is based on prejudice?
For decades the Senate refused to confirm judges if they didn’t think homosexuality was a sin. Does that mean that all those nominations were invalid and all decisions moot?
Amazing how the world changes.