# Grand Inquisitor Cory Booker **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 7, 2019, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137 "2019-02-07T20:57:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![EscAlaMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/escalamike/32/4177_2.png) [@EscAlaMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EscAlaMike)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/21 "2019-02-07T22:19:38Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > For decades the Senate refused to confirm judges if they _didn’t_ think homosexuality was a sin. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![EscAlaMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/escalamike/32/4177_2.png) [@EscAlaMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EscAlaMike)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/22 "2019-02-07T22:20:42Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > What if the particular moral code is based on prejudice? You would still have to show how that prejudice relates to following the law. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/23 "2019-02-07T22:23:02Z")
> [@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? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/24 "2019-02-07T22:23:35Z")
> [@EscAlaMike](#): > > You would still have to show how that prejudice relates to following the law. Why? If I’m a Senator I don’t have to give my reasons. Hell, we don’t even have to have a vote. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/25 "2019-02-07T22:25:02Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![EscAlaMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/escalamike/32/4177_2.png) [@EscAlaMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EscAlaMike)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/26 "2019-02-07T22:25:26Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Why? > > If I’m a Senator I don’t have to give my reasons. Hell, we don’t even have to have a vote. Sure, you can play that game. ---
**Author:** ![EscAlaMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/escalamike/32/4177_2.png) [@EscAlaMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EscAlaMike)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/27 "2019-02-07T22:33:04Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/28 "2019-02-07T22:33:16Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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? Human nature being what it is, I’m sure that there are times when judges err on the side of permitting evidence that will allow the alleged rapist/murderer to be locked up, due to their revulsion at the nature of the crime. Sure, they’re not \*supposed \*to do that but, yeah, I’m sure it happens. I don’t see any way to help the accused rapists and murderers out, because indeed, pretty much everybody is prejudiced against those groups, and for good reason. But there are also groups in society who are frequently discriminated against for NO good reason, but purely based on bigotry. They have the right to know that, should they be on trial, their judge will not be a bigot. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/29 "2019-02-07T22:39:09Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/30 "2019-02-07T22:39:40Z")
Well I support Cory Booker for President, and I applaud the questions he asked in the hearing. As for his views on religion, I found [this article](https://religionnews.com/2018/10/24/cory-booker-fashions-himself-as-a-candidate-for-the-religious-left/) very enlightening. I have no problem at all with a litmus test for the Supreme Court that includes not being prejudiced against LGBT+ individuals, any more than I would have a problem with a litmus test that includes not being prejudiced against black people. If your religion makes you prejudiced, then that is your problem. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/31 "2019-02-07T22:45:16Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/32 "2019-02-07T22:48:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/33 "2019-02-07T22:49:09Z")
> [@EscAlaMike](#): > > Adhering to a moral code ≠ having a personal prejudice. Prejudice against gay people isn’t a “moral code.” It’s not a moral anything - it’s bigotry, and should not be something that’s countenanced in our judicial system. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/34 "2019-02-07T22:49:23Z")
> [@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. > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![EscAlaMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/escalamike/32/4177_2.png) [@EscAlaMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EscAlaMike)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/35 "2019-02-07T22:51:39Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Prejudice against gay people isn’t a “moral code.” It’s not a moral anything - it’s bigotry, and should not be something that’s countenanced in our judicial system. Believing that gay sex is immoral is not prejudice against gay people. Prejudice against gay people would be believing that they should be treated differently from straight people under the law. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/36 "2019-02-07T22:53:29Z")
> [@EscAlaMike](#): > > Cory Booker [brings in the Inquisition](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/05/cory_booker_questions_trump_judicial_nominee_do_you_believe_gay_marriage_is_a_sin.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/37 "2019-02-07T22:54:26Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Prejudice against gay people isn’t a “moral code.” It’s not a moral anything - it’s bigotry, and should not be something that’s countenanced in our judicial system. You have created a religious test. Hundreds of followers of traditional Christian sects are barred from government service. Newspeak has arrived. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/38 "2019-02-07T22:55:30Z")
> [@EscAlaMike](#): > > Believing that gay sex is immoral is not prejudice against gay people. Yes it is – that’s a prejudiced belief. Prejudiced beliefs are legal to have, and it’s entirely legal and reasonable for others to point out those prejudiced beliefs. Just as the very common belief (in the mid 20th century) that interracial sex and marriage was immoral is/was a prejudiced belief. > [@](#): > > Prejudice against gay people would be believing that they should be treated differently from straight people under the law. That would be belief that prejudiced action should be taking place. If your religion tells you that black people or Jews are inferior, then your religion is telling you to have a prejudiced belief. If your religion is telling you that gay people having sex is immoral, then your religion is telling you to have a prejudiced belief. You might be a perfectly nice person, but if you have this belief, then you have a prejudiced belief. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/39 "2019-02-07T22:56:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > You have created a religious test. Hundreds of followers of traditional Christian sects are barred from government service. Newspeak has arrived. Unless you’d believe the same thing about someone insisting that their religion tells them black people are inferior, then this isn’t a religious test. It’s a test of principles. Plenty of Christians of all sorts of sects, traditional and otherwise, do not have this belief. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137/40 "2019-02-07T23:30:51Z")
> [@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? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-inquisitor-cory-booker/829137.md?page=3)