# Jeff Session.. bigot.. racist..and now Anti-securlarist **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 13, 2017, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031 "2017-01-13T13:11:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/81 "2017-01-15T15:55:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But by speaking out against this bigotry, and treating it the same as other bigotries in terms of your vote, wouldn’t you be doing all you can to change public opinion and society for the better in terms of this form of bigotry? Yes. That’s indeed what I’d be doing – assigning “anti-atheist bigotry” as my primary focus and doing all I can to change public opinion and society for the better in terms of this form of bigotry…at the expense of other priorities. I am not sure I agree that the problems the Senate needs to address ought to be weighed thusly. ---
**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:** [January 15, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/82 "2017-01-15T16:04:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. That’s indeed what I’d be doing – assigning “anti-atheist bigotry” as my primary focus and doing all I can to change public opinion and society for the better in terms of this form of bigotry…at the expense of other priorities. I am not sure I agree that the problems the Senate needs to address ought to be weighed thusly. I don’t think voting against a bigot, and advocating against bigotry, would take away from other priorities. I’m not saying throw a fit - just vote no, and explain why. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/83 "2017-01-15T16:04:56Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Whenever anyone on the left says anything at all negative about guns, there are the second amendment defenders that come out and claim that the statement means that they are against the second amendment. > > Yet, when a public official publicly endorses one religious preference while condemning another, that’s not in any way an indicator that they have little respect for the first. > > Not looking it up, so I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I have seen you defend the former, in that, even if the democrat didn’t say anything unconstitutional, you infer from their remarks that they would not respect it, rather than nutpicking when those claims are made. Perhaps you should look it up. In general, I try to be cognizant of whether a statement suggests a personal preference or is in support of a specific proposal. I’d be interested in seeing an example from me that illustrates what you describe above. > [@](#): > > But, it comes down to, do you (as senator who gets a chance to vote on the matter), feel that a person who would publicly condemn a religious preference would be able to apply the law in a non-prejudiced way. I feel not. This concerns me when this person is also the head of the justice department. Sure. Just as I feel that a nominee who favors banning guns would be able to apply the law as outlined in Heller and MacDonald notwithstanding his or her own policy preferences. Naturally, I would fear that this nominee would be damaging in edge cases. But ultimately, as I have said for the past eight years, elections have consequences, and Obama was entitled to appoint those who shared his goals. Can you find any post from me over the past eight years which departs from that position? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/84 "2017-01-15T16:42:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Biogtry against atheists is much more socially accepted. So was bigotry against every other demographic at one point or another. Didn’t make it right then, doesn’t make it right now. You are correct in that the political calculus works out that atheists are an easy group socially against which to discriminate, but that’s why we put protections into the constitution and civil rights law in the fist place, to protect those groups who were vulnerable to being a socially acceptable group against which to discriminate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/85 "2017-01-15T21:25:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > So was bigotry against every other demographic at one point or another. > > Didn’t make it right then, doesn’t make it right now. > > You are correct in that the political calculus works out that atheists are an easy group socially against which to discriminate, but that’s why we put protections into the constitution and civil rights law in the fist place, to protect those groups who were vulnerable to being a socially acceptable group against which to discriminate. But the particular type of discrimination in play here – urging that voters not vote for atheists – is the type of bigotry that has never been reached by those laws, and indeed is actually protected by the First Amendment. ---
**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:** [January 15, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/86 "2017-01-15T21:31:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the particular type of discrimination in play here – urging that voters not vote for atheists – is the type of bigotry that has never been reached by those laws, and indeed is actually protected by the First Amendment. Is anyone saying otherwise? Sure he can urge people not to vote for atheists. But it’s still an obnoxious thing to do (that also reveals deep and insulting misunderstanding of non-religious folks). He might remain legally _eligible_ for high office, but he’s certainly not a good fit with those views. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/87 "2017-01-15T21:45:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the particular type of discrimination in play here – urging that voters not vote for atheists – is the type of bigotry that has never been reached by those laws, and indeed is actually protected by the First Amendment. > [@Procrustus](#): > > Is anyone saying otherwise? Yes: > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > In the non-hyperbole contest, it is now apparent that the Republican nominee for attorney general has explicitly stated that anyone who is an atheist is unfit for government. He has basically said that he does not agree with the First Amendment to the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/88 "2017-01-16T02:26:16Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > This is a pretty good analogy. Red Sox Fans might hate Yankee fans and vis versa but they will all unite against someone who says that watching baseball is a waste of time. Since when do fans of teams that use the DH watch baseball? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/89 "2017-01-16T02:48:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The answer is that in my view it’s very reasonable to vote against him for this bigotry. > > But I am not sure I would. Because the next nominee would be unlikely to be better, as long as Trump is making the nominations. Well, you can always go with the McConnell strategy of “rejected nominees all the way down”… > [@](#): > > As potential nominees go, Sessions is better than most. . . . even though he is flawed in many respects. So I’d have to weigh the utility of rejecting him against the likelihood that the second choice on Trump’s **lust** is better. So…Ivanka? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/90 "2017-01-16T03:01:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the particular type of discrimination in play here – urging that voters not vote for atheists – is the type of bigotry that has never been reached by those laws, and indeed is actually protected by the First Amendment. If I give you [a link to the post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19919741&postcount=29) in question, could you please take a look at my point on this subject and clarify where I might be misunderstanding? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/91 "2017-01-16T03:17:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This deserves a longer response, but – if the next guy is equally bigoted, or worse, then what’s been gained? If the next guy is just as bad, or worse, is there some law that says you HAVE to accept him? I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/92 "2017-01-16T03:18:50Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Well, you can always go with the McConnell strategy of “rejected nominees all the way down”…So…Ivanka? Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/93 "2017-01-16T10:48:25Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Is it really a purely statutory matter? That seems easy to get around, if so. If I’m Federal Employee Mr. Jerk, and I say “Hey, I’m making an appointment, and the law says I can’t make religion a qualifier. However, I’m telling you, I won’t appoint anyone that isn’t an athiest. I’m not going to change the law, I’m just telling you that I will never appoint a non-athiest.” that seems like a problematic situation. On a legal level, would that be entirely reasonable? The government can apply a religious test, so long as it’s not statutory? The President, and his senior appointees, are not bound by the same restrictions that govern the civil service. The remedy for a President that says, “I will never appoint an atheist to my Cabinet,” is strictly political – that is, the public can choose to support or reject such a plan at the ballot box. So in that sense, the government can apply a religious test and there is no legal remedy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/94 "2017-01-16T11:23:48Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > If the next guy is just as bad, or worse, is there some law that says you HAVE to accept him? I don’t think so. After William Ruckelshaus and Elliot Richardson had both resigned rather than fire Archibald Cox, Robert Bork was next in line. He discussed resigning as well with Ruckelshaus and Ruckelshaus told him not to – that essentially Nixon would simply keep appointing Acting Attorneys General until he found a janitor at the Justice Department willing to carry out the order, and that it was more important for the department to not lose their senior leadership in one fell swoop. The same calculus applies here. 5 USC § 3349a provides, in relevant part, that a newly elected president may appoint acting officers without Senate consent for a period of 300 days, and § 3345 provides that when an office becomes vacant the President may staff it for up to 210 days. The import of these rules is that while there is no law that says I have to accept anyone, the President may appoint people to the role of Acting Attorney General for 300 days, and when that appointment expires the person he appointed as Acting Deputy AG becomes Acting AG for 210 days, and so forth. So my brave stand does not, in fact, frustrate the President’s appointment of a line of people bigoted against atheists. Honest question, now, for you and all concerned: were you aware of the provisions of 5 USC § 3345 _et seq_ (the “Federal Vacancies Reform Act”) and were you factoring the provisions of that rule into your analysis? ---
**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:** [January 16, 2017, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/95 "2017-01-16T13:55:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > After William Ruckelshaus and Elliot Richardson had both resigned rather than fire Archibald Cox, Robert Bork was next in line. He discussed resigning as well with Ruckelshaus and Ruckelshaus told him not to – that essentially Nixon would simply keep appointing Acting Attorneys General until he found a janitor at the Justice Department willing to carry out the order, and that it was more important for the department to not lose their senior leadership in one fell swoop. > > The same calculus applies here. > > 5 USC § 3349a provides, in relevant part, that a newly elected president may appoint acting officers without Senate consent for a period of 300 days, and § 3345 provides that when an office becomes vacant the President may staff it for up to 210 days. > > The import of these rules is that while there is no law that says I have to accept anyone, the President may appoint people to the role of Acting Attorney General for 300 days, and when that appointment expires the person he appointed as Acting Deputy AG becomes Acting AG for 210 days, and so forth. > > So my brave stand does not, in fact, frustrate the President’s appointment of a line of people bigoted against atheists. > > Honest question, now, for you and all concerned: were you aware of the provisions of 5 USC § 3345 _et seq_ (the “Federal Vacancies Reform Act”) and were you factoring the provisions of that rule into your analysis? I wasn’t aware of that, but it doesn’t change my calculus. In the long run it’s absolutely vital to show disapproval of bigotry – acceptance of bigotry, even if it’s a lesser form, will do more damage to the country than opposition, even if it results in some period of time with someone who might be worse in some way than the first bigot. It’d be better, for example, if the Senate kept rejecting a hypothetical President Duke’s white supremacist nominees, demonstrating their unacceptability, even if this results in a 10 on the white supremacist scale in a cabinet position than a 9. If the 9 is voted in, that gives both President Duke and his appointee more political influence and power, normalizing them to some extent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/96 "2017-01-16T14:24:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I wasn’t aware of that, but it doesn’t change my calculus. In the long run it’s absolutely vital to show disapproval of bigotry – acceptance of bigotry, even if it’s a lesser form, will do more damage to the country than opposition, even if it results in some period of time with someone who might be worse in some way than the first bigot. It’d be better, for example, if the Senate kept rejecting a hypothetical President Duke’s white supremacist nominees, demonstrating their unacceptability, even if this results in a 10 on the white supremacist scale in a cabinet position than a 9. If the 9 is voted in, that gives both President Duke and his appointee more political influence and power, normalizing them to some extent. OK. Do you believe that this position is true also for bigotry against atheists, and that no reasonble person could disagree with you? That is – you keep using the example of a KKK / white supremacist nominee, and I agree that your calculus is correct for this example, but I think it’s correct because of the opprobrium that a vast majority of the voting public would deliver to such a nominee. In other words, KKK beliefs are already firmly placed in the “richly deserving social pariah” category in the public mind. I’m asking you if you also think it’s the right position for bigotry against atheists, which is _already_ normalized and accepted by a wide swath of society, when the tradeoff might be someone worse with respect to racial and sexual identity rights. And if you believe it’s right (which I suspect you do) do you contend that _every reasonable person must also agree it’s right_, or could a reasonable person weigh the damage the second, worse, Acting Attorney General might be for racial civil rights and LGBT civil rights, and make the contrary decision based on his view of political necessity? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/97 "2017-01-16T14:31:56Z")
A further thought experiment: Let’s imagine we’re back in 2008, and you learn that Senator Obama believes that same-sex marriage is a moral necessity. Some of his advisors urge him not to share this belief, and instead affirm his public support for “one-man, one-woman” as the only permissible model for legal marriage. If you have the opportunity, do you urge him to publicly support same-sex marriage leading up to the election? What if you were to learn that polling suggested that this issue might swing the election to his opponent, and he assured you that after his election, he was prepared to gradually reverse his position? (Note that this is purely a thought experiment – I have ever reason to believe Obama was honest about his beliefs and that he, like many other Americans, simply came to change his mind. I did, after all). ---
**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:** [January 16, 2017, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/98 "2017-01-16T15:21:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. > > Do you believe that this position is true also for bigotry against atheists, and that no reasonble person could disagree with you? That is – you keep using the example of a KKK / white supremacist nominee, and I agree that your calculus is correct for this example, but I think it’s correct because of the opprobrium that a vast majority of the voting public would deliver to such a nominee. In other words, KKK beliefs are already firmly placed in the “richly deserving social pariah” category in the public mind. > > I’m asking you if you also think it’s the right position for bigotry against atheists, which is _already_ normalized and accepted by a wide swath of society, when the tradeoff might be someone worse with respect to racial and sexual identity rights. > > And if you believe it’s right (which I suspect you do) do you contend that _every reasonable person must also agree it’s right_, or could a reasonable person weigh the damage the second, worse, Acting Attorney General might be for racial civil rights and LGBT civil rights, and make the contrary decision based on his view of political necessity? I believe it’s right, but I think a reasonable person can disagree. I assume you also believe this. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/99 "2017-01-16T16:28:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I believe it’s right, but I think a reasonable person can disagree. I assume you also believe this. Yes. I think bigotry against atheists is foolish and misguided. We have effectively limited our elected officials to religious believers of one stripe or another for years with no apparent universal virtue in their number. Some good, some venal, just as we’ll find in the atheist population. In fact, if I can hazard an intemperate guess, I suspect more atheists can convincingly claim that they have thought, in detail, about what it means to be good, and why they choose that path, than religious believers have, at least on a per capita basis. But I think choosing this as a hill suitable for fighting and dying is the wrong practical choice. So as a reasonable person, I’d likely not hold the line on this issue if I were a senator. ---
**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:** [January 16, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/100 "2017-01-16T16:37:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . > > But I think choosing this as a hill suitable for fighting and dying is the wrong practical choice. So as a reasonable person, I’d likely not hold the line on this issue if I were a senator. First the came for the atheists, … [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031.md?page=6)