At least he said it was foolish and misguided, and placed it on “back burner” alert.
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.
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?
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”.
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?
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.
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?”
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 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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.