Grand Inquisitor Cory Booker

Politics & Elections
61

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.

62

Then you’ve just said you don’t think gay marriage is a sin. Good for you.

Still, it’s good to check that a prospective judge agrees.

63

You cannot dodge the basic requirement to be a decent human being by appealing to your religion. If a basic, common-sense moral litmus test like “do you think gay people deserve equal rights” disqualifies everyone from your religion… Good. Your religion is fucking awful and doesn’t deserve to be seated in the halls of power until its morality joins us in the 21st century. Your religion cannot be a shield for your immorality. Full stop.

“Awesome, that’s all we need to know, thanks for your time, NEXT!”

What, should we entertain that kind of bigotry? Why? I wouldn’t want someone like that as a friend, acquaintance, or business partner. Why the fuck would I want someone like that in a position of serious power over me?

Look, Regardless of the illusion that originalists and textualists like to put forward, the reality is that a lot, and I mean a lot, of higher court cases come down to competing statutes, competing interpretations of the law, and competing interests. If it was an easy case, chances are good it wouldn’t have made it to the district court in the first place. And with those competing interpretations, statutes, and interests, you’re left with a lot of wiggle room to find the interpretation you prefer. (Often in ways that are downright farcical.) Given that reality, the biases and beliefs of those on the courts absolutely matter. That’s why this question matters. It’s not a religious thing, any more than the question, “Do you believe we should be able to own people as property” is a religious thing - I hope you would join me in soundly rejecting any judge who pines for the days of slavery, as allowed in the bible.

That is a distinction without a difference.

Oh for cryin’ out loud.

Imagine there’s a major religion that advocates chattel slavery. The owning of people as property.

Imagine then, that a senator, perhaps a black senator, asks someone of that religion, “Do you believe humans should be kept as slaves?”

Is that a religious test? Or is there some other possible reason why we might not want a judge who advocates for slavery?

If your religious beliefs are grossly immoral, you do not get to hide behind the fact that they are religious beliefs.

Also, a gay marriage litmus test is not the most interesting part of this hearing.

This is.

This is a nominee to the DC court of appeals, a pretty high position, and she has never worked as a judge. That’s fuckin’ weird, right?

64

I’m not so sure. Some people think that homosexuals should be allowed to get married, but only to someone of the opposite sex.

65

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.

66

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.

67

Worth pointing out that it’s not only “major” religions that get protection: religious minorities do, too.

And there is a minor religion–the World Church of the Creator, who I mentioned before–that advocates literal genocide of all non-white humans.

The “NO RELIGIOUS TEST!” principle that UltraVires raises would appear to mean that, if a WCotC asshole were nominated for, say, Secretary of Defense, it’d be inappropriate to ask whether our new secretary of defense wanted to murder all nonwhite people. A Town Council hiring a new Chief of Police couldn’t consider that idea in their interviews.

That’s some bonkers bullshit.

A reasonable “NO RELIGIOUS TEST” rule means that you can’t ask about the origin of a belief. A person who believes that gay sex is a bad idea can’t be asked whether their belief is rooted in a belief in an intolerant Catholic God, or a belief in Cooties, or a belief in Jordan Peterson’s idiotic blatherings.

But of course the beliefs themselves may be evaluated for their suitability in a public officer.

68

A: I believe homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals are somewhat less than human.

B: Well then obviously we can’t put you in a position of power where those beliefs might come into conflict with the law.

A: But it’s a religious belief.

B: Sorry. You can’t get through the back door what you aren’t permitted to get through the front.

69

Just to play devil’s advocate for the moment, I wonder if it makes a bit of difference that Booker used the word “sin.” That takes it away from strictly a moral question and makes it explicitly about religious belief, IME. Not a specific religion, but it definitely is asking about religiously-originated morality.

Which, to remain clear, is not in any way violating the Constitution.
.

70

[bolding mine] Whoa whoa whoa…what?

71

I believe you just nominated yourself Chronos.

72

Just re-read his post, fer crying out loud.

Hey, let’s say someone is nominated to the bench who has written on further expansion of marriage laws, and the hearing goes like this:

Senator: Mr. Nominee, do you support expansion of laws to allow a man to marry his dog?

Nominee: How dare you question me on my religious beliefs!
That’s all cool, right?

73

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.

74

Certainly what you’re saying could happen. For instance, Cory Booker might suddenly claim to object to people entering the country from certain other countries on safety grounds. And if it came out that he spent years railing against Muslims, and wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the country, and these “certain other countries” happen to be mostly full of Muslims, we might question his sincerity about his objections being grounded in safety instead of religious hatred.

But in this case, do we have any reason to believe that Cory Booker’s question is grounded in a hatred of Christianity? Or is it more reasonable to assume that he has a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community?

75

I know you weren’t asking me, but I think Booker’s only “legitimate interest” is his own.

76

I think your only interest in this subject is a political ax to grind against Democrats.

77

Well, yes. We let people worship Quetzalcoatl, but they have to forego the whole “offering of still-beating hearts” angle.

78

I’m not sure how your conclusion follows. To me it seems that Booker and his ilk believe that the law requires that judges not be applying personal preferences to cases, and the line of questioning was germane to establishing that this candidate would not do so.

[bolding mine]

Don’t think for an instant we don’t recognize a smutty feedline when we see one.

79

No, just Booker.

80

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[ol]
[li]not denying her a basic right of citizenship, and[/li][li]an action based on a belief she can change, if she wishes to[/li][/ol]
I thought someone would slap this bullshit down sooner in the thread, but maybe it was just too easy.