# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/101 "2017-01-16T16:44:53Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > First the came for the atheists, … At least he said it was foolish and misguided, and placed it on “back burner” alert. ---
**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, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/102 "2017-01-16T16:58:22Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > First the came for the atheists, … This is a valid point in general, but I believe it’s inapplicable to this particular situation. But same question about Obama to you: knowing that it might cost the election, do you urge hypothetical 2008 Senator Obama to support same-sex marriage, or bide his time until he is safe from political consequence? Or do you remind 2008-Obama that “First they came for the homosexuals, and I said nothing…?” > [@Czarcasm](#): > > At least he said it was foolish and misguided, and placed it on “back burner” alert. Same question. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/103 "2017-01-16T17:09:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is a valid point in general, but I believe it’s inapplicable to this particular situation. > > But same question about Obama to you: knowing that it might cost the election, do you urge hypothetical 2008 Senator Obama to support same-sex marriage, or bide his time until he is safe from political consequence? > > Or do you remind 2008-Obama that “First they came for the homosexuals, and I said nothing…?” > > Same question. I tell him that sometimes doing the right thing means you personally might not win in the beginning, but that a man of his stature might be able to cause an overall win in the long run. A few more risks in the face of a Congress that will oppose him no matter _what_ he decides to do? Who knows how that would have worked out. ---
**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, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/104 "2017-01-16T17:13:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I tell him that sometimes doing the right thing means you personally might not win in the beginning, but that a man of his stature might be able to cause an overall win in the long run. A few more risks in the face of a Congress that will oppose him no matter _what_ he decides to do? Who knows how that would have worked out. And do you make room for the idea that a reasonable person of good faith might weigh the equities differently, and advise the candidate, “It’s better for the long term if you publicly affirm your support for the law, or avoid comment on the issue if nothing else?” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/105 "2017-01-16T17:21:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And do you make room for the idea that a reasonable person of good faith might weigh the equities differently, and advise the candidate, “It’s better for the long term if you publicly affirm your support for the law, or avoid comment on the issue if nothing else?” You asked me what I would tell the President, and I told you. Is the hypothetical “reasonable person of good faith” being told that he must consider what others of different opinions on the matter before he advises the President…or is it only atheists that must factor in everyone else’s opinion before they give their own? I wonder how far other civil rights would have gotten if they had to depend on fair-weather friends that decided to wait until it was expedient or safe to step up to the plate? ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/106 "2017-01-16T17:27:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. That seems like a fairly massive oversight. Is this one of those situations where there’s some greater purpose served by not restricting the President and their senior appointees to this restriction? Does this also hold true for other characteristics? If now-Attorney General Jerk goes on to say, “Oh, and by the way, I’m never hiring any women, black people, gays, or blind people” is he alright legally with that, too? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/107 "2017-01-16T17:32:47Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That seems like a fairly massive oversight. Is this one of those situations where there’s some greater purpose served by not restricting the President and their senior appointees to this restriction? Does this also hold true for other characteristics? If now-Attorney General Jerk goes on to say, “Oh, and by the way, I’m never hiring any women, black people, gays, or blind people” is he alright legally with that, too? In the game _Dungeons And Dragons_ someone like that would be considered “Lawful-Evil”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/108 "2017-01-16T17:36:04Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That seems like a fairly massive oversight. Is this one of those situations where there’s some greater purpose served by not restricting the President and their senior appointees to this restriction? Does this also hold true for other characteristics? If now-Attorney General Jerk goes on to say, “Oh, and by the way, I’m never hiring any women, black people, gays, or blind people” is he alright legally with that, too? It’s a bit more complicated. If the president were to say to you: I want to appoint you SecState, but first you must swear allegiance to the Episcopal Church, that would not be constitutional. However, there is no practical way to prevent him from only nominating people he knows to be practicing Episcopalians. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/109 "2017-01-16T17:43:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s a bit more complicated. If the president were to say to you: I want to appoint you SecState, but first you must swear allegiance to the Episcopal Church, that would not be constitutional. However, there is no practical way to prevent him from only nominating people he knows to be practicing Episcopalians. there isn’t? One couldn’t just easily point out that all of his nominations belonged to a particular religious sect? ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/110 "2017-01-16T17:50:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s a bit more complicated. If the president were to say to you: I want to appoint you SecState, but first you must swear allegiance to the Episcopal Church, that would not be constitutional. However, there is no practical way to prevent him from only nominating people he knows to be practicing Episcopalians. The practical problem is that we don’t know he’s doing that, I would’ve said. Requiring an oath of allegiance brings the test out into the open; we know he’s doing it, so it can be stopped. If he cunningly keeps all that in the dark, then we can’t know, so on the practical level, as you say, we can’t really do anything. But isn’t saying “I will never appoint a non-Episcopalian” also bringing that test public? On a practical level, if we _know_ that he’s applying this test because he’s told us, then theoretically (law permitting) we could stop him. ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/111 "2017-01-16T17:52:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You asked me what I would tell the President, and I told you. Yes. Now I’m asking you a second question: “Do you make room for the possibility that a reasonable person, acting in good faith, might advise the President differently?” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/112 "2017-01-16T17:54:59Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > The practical problem is that we don’t know he’s doing that, I would’ve said. Requiring an oath of allegiance brings the test out into the open; we know he’s doing it, so it can be stopped. If he cunningly keeps all that in the dark, then we can’t know, so on the practical level, as you say, we can’t really do anything. > > But isn’t saying “I will never appoint a non-Episcopalian” also bringing that test public? Apparently you are not discriminating unless you _say_ that you are discriminating. If you only hire openly practicing Episcopalians but never say outright that you will only hire them, everything is o.k. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/113 "2017-01-16T17:59:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Now I’m asking you a second question: “Do you make room for the possibility that a reasonable person, acting in good faith, might advise the President differently?” I already know that people who think that they are in the right will be advising the President differently. This does not change my right or ethical responsibility to advise her/him to do what _I_ consider to be the right thing for this country. edited to add: This is beginning to sound a lot like “Won’t you think of [del]the children[/del] those who want to hold you down?” ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/114 "2017-01-16T18:00:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Apparently you are not discriminating unless you _say_ that you are discriminating. If you only hire openly practicing Episcopalians but never say outright that you will only hire them, everything is o.k. I think the difference being drawn here isn’t discriminating/not discriminating, but the practical effects of trying to stop it. Someone who openly says they’re applying a test, or who openly applies a test, is a lot easier to spot and therefore stop than someone who does those things only in their own heads. Someone could very well have a policy of, say, hiring only Christians, and given the demographics of the US that could be very difficult to differentiate from someone who has no such bias but just so happens to have hired only Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/115 "2017-01-16T18:04:57Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I think the difference being drawn here isn’t discriminating/not discriminating, but the practical effects of trying to stop it. Someone who openly says they’re applying a test, or who openly applies a test, is a lot easier to spot and therefore stop than someone who does those things only in their own heads. Someone could very well have a policy of, say, hiring only Christians, and given the demographics of the US that could be very difficult to differentiate from someone who has no such bias but just so happens to have hired only Christians. I think that, depending on how many were hired, it wouldn’t be that hard to build a case against someone who hired _only_ Christians. ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/116 "2017-01-16T18:11:20Z")
That’s probably fair. Likewise, if it’s not just Christians but a specific subgroup, or a group with much less overall numbers in the US, the more the bias would be obvious. If Attorney General Jerk has a 500-strong department which “just so happens” to be 100% atheist, questions could reasonably be asked. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/117 "2017-01-16T18:16:53Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That’s probably fair. Likewise, if it’s not just Christians but a specific subgroup, or a group with much less overall numbers in the US, the more the bias would be obvious. If Attorney General Jerk has a 500-strong department which “just so happens” to be 100% atheist, questions could reasonably be asked. If something like that happened, there would be none of this wishy-washy “This would be hard to prove” stuff-He would just get his ass fired immediately. ---
**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/118 "2017-01-16T18:26:06Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That seems like a fairly massive oversight. Is this one of those situations where there’s some greater purpose served by not restricting the President and their senior appointees to this restriction? Does this also hold true for other characteristics? If now-Attorney General Jerk goes on to say, “Oh, and by the way, I’m never hiring any women, black people, gays, or blind people” is he alright legally with that, too? There are roughly 1,100 Schedule C appointment positions within the United States government that consist of senior policy advisors and assistants to presidential appointees, members of the Senior Executive Service, or others Schedule C appointee. These positions – and I am not sure how many of the 1,100 are allocated to the Justice Department – are not covered by ordinary civil service protections and processes. Apart from an Executive Order that mandated protections for atheists, women, black people, gays, or blind people, I’m not aware of any law that would compel such protection. The courts have generally held that the small number of positions involved with Schedule A and C employment are intended to allow the President to carry out his desired policy goals (see 5 C.F.R. §§ 213-3101 to 213-3396) exist because the confidential and policy creation staff positions should remain essentially free for the President and his appointees to fill as desired, unencumbered by the normal hiring dictates. ("However, the fact that Congress explicitly denied a remedy to Schedule A employees shows an intention to deny them a statutory or constitutional remedy for damages. See Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223, 228 (D.C.Cir.1988) ") In short: you cannot demand that the President appoint you as Secretary of State, even if you are more qualified than another candidate and even if you can prove that the President passed you over for reasons of racial, gender, or religious discrimination. There are a small number of appointee positions, policy and confidential advisors to Presidential appointees, who likewise are exempt from these protections. ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/119 "2017-01-16T18:27:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If something like that happened, there would be none of this wishy-washy > “This would be hard to prove” stuff-He would just get his ass fired immediately. Would it at that point be getting into legally problematic territory, though? Or is it firing just because the President would want the guy gone (or he got impeached, I guess). It seems weird to me that if someone actually applied a religious test, but in secret, they’d be in trouble, but if someone outright says that they’re going to apply a religious test that’s no (legal) big deal. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/120 "2017-01-16T18:28:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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). You can always specifically craft an analogy to get what you want. But, to do so, you had to make changes that don’t hold. The answer is that I would advise Obama not to say one way or the other. I would advise him to support civil unions and gay rights, but never flat out say one way or the other about marriage. The issue of marriage is something that can wait a little while, while he keeps other things good. Problem is, that situation isn’t this situation. This isn’t about having to hide being for one thing in order to get elected. There is no greater good here. There’s no requirement that we vote for the next guy if he’s worse. You just hold out until you get someone you can reasonably support. And, yes, I would argue that all reasonable people would do the same thing. The idea that you are forced to pick the second choice is not reasonable. Not that Sessions is only bigoted towards atheists. You bring up the KKK. Sessions was chummy with them. He only disagreed over marijuana. And I sure don’t want to see that rolled back, either. Sessions is an evil man. Most Republicans are better than he. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031.md?page=7)