On June 27, the President of the United States gave a speech stating that the laws of this country come directly from God, and that he was going to appoint judges that support this “fact”.
For two days I have read local and national papers, and have not found one article or editorial commenting on this obvious Constitutional breach. WTF?
It’s George W. Bush, just spouting off nonsense as usual. No one’s going to make a big fuss about this gaffe until he actually tries to appoint judges with a religious litmus test.
Of course, Presidents have been appointing judges with certain viewpoints before, but I don’t recall offhand anyone who was pushing such a blatant assault on the Constitution.
It’s just a sound byte, ignore it. It means nothing.
[sub]or maybe it was a subliminable message to you atheists :)[/sub]
If nothing is said, won’t this give Bush the idea that there is no opposition, giving him the go-ahead for this very unconstitutional idea? Actually, I fully expected him to say something along these lines, but I am shocked that there seems to be no opposition in any of the editorial pages around the country. I gave up on Congress saying anything when they all stood on the steps to say the Pledge, shouting out the word “GAWD!” like a bunch of third grade showoffs.
Don’t forget, when they let him out to speak in public, he has to simply read his telepromters. However, a little known fact about our horrendous orator is that he is dyslexic (sp?). This may be why he stumbles over words and has a generally hard time reading his telepromted speeches. But most of the time he is just a highly filmed marrionette.
As far as the OP is concerned…I have not been happy with Mr.Bush and his Christian overtones since his inauguration. And I am not wholly convinced he meant
literally. He is just a devout Christian and likes to gab about God when he’s not reading his telepromt. Simple
Silly goose…that is clearly not what the Founding Fathers meant when they put all that stuff in there about religious tests. They just meant that you couldn’t ask someone if, say, he was a Baptist or a Methodist. Asking if they believe the laws come from the One Obvious God of the Universe isn’t a religious test–it’s just plain common sense.
I mean, Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s just the way it is. Any atheists that don’t see it that way can just leave.
Dr. J
DoctorJ, I don’t know you so pardon my naivete. Was that supposed to be self-parody?
Oh, and here’s an excerpt from some commentary on the same remarks that concern Czarcasm:
*" It’s no surprise that Falwell would use the occasion to preach fundamentalism and hatred (at least, hatred of judges). Or that flag-waving pols would wrap themselves in the pledge. Or that Bush, the son of a president who made the pledge a key issue in his 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis, would follow suit. But after Bush had a night to ponder the court?s decision – you think he read it? – he took pledge-mania fundamentalism a giant step further. At the G8 summit, he opened a press conference with Russian president Vladmir Putin by saying, “We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.” That is a major – and stunning – policy declaration. Bush was announcing a new litmus test for judges. It?s not just whether you?re a conservative or constructionist (or meet the political needs of Karl Rove, Bush?s uberstrategist). The question is: Do you believe in God, and believe that secular law follows the law of God? In other words, there are no atheists – or agnostics – in Bush?s chambers.
Did Bush realize what he was saying? Is he going to ask all potential judicial nominees to tell him their view of God and the derivation of rights? How is this fundamentalism – only believers need apply – different from that of America?s enemies?"*
Source: http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5930
I think those are fair questions.
Gee, Dr. J, I hope that was tongue in cheek. At any rate, it’s almost July 1, so prepare to get to work! [sub]under those nice cushy rules limiting you to 24 hour shifts and only 80 hours a week, dagnab it! Now back in my day, we mumble, mutter, pansy-assed, cheese weasel…oh nurse! Doctor needs you in the on-call room stat![/sub]
Um, sorry, back to GD.
I’m not really sure why this is so shocking – W is so beholden to certain elements of his party (or at least needs their support enough) that I never expected him to nominate a professing atheist to the bench. Did you?
I’m not really concerned about a judiciary that thinks that rights come from God, as long as the judge also thinks that everyone has those rights whether they believe or not. I would be concerned about an American judiciary filled with Scalias, certainly, but that’s apart from their religion entirely, and more on their political views. The type of judges that W is likely to appoint hasn’t changed, so I’m not any more scared than before.
Mandelstam and Qadgop: yeah, DoctorJ was makin’ funny there. 
MM, there’s a difference between being beholden to a certain constituency, and flagrantly admitting one’s beholdnness as though one felt that even the appearance of fairness were inconsequential. In addition, atheism is not necessarily something that a
a given candidate for the bench will profess or not profess. The subject hasn’t generally come up; whereas the litmus-like remarks imply that it should and will. Do you think it should? Do you want to hear judicial nominees questioned about their beliefs in god? Or candidates officially excluded because they have made no pronouncements on the subject?
I’d also want to point out that it’s entirely possible to believe in God without believing that rights in a democratic republic derive from God. The question of political and legal rights (which aren’t necessarily the same thing) is actually philosophically complicated and there are many possible non-theistic foundations that a given religious person might want to accept.
Finally, I don’t think that we can assume that there is no threat to the rights of non-believers. Certainly the president has just articulated a belief that those who don’t believe that rights are derived from God, have no right–as far as he is concerned–to serve on the bench. It may be true that the type of judicial nominee we can expect from W. is no different than before. OTOH, the more flagrantly fundamentalist the president’s remarks become, the greater the danger that such remarks will become publicly acceptable.
Whenever a change in public opinion is at stake, there’s a lot to be afraid of. Although US democracy is dysfunctional in many ways, public opinion still counts for something. Public opinion can and should be offended by overt religious fundamentalism on the part of the president. Or so I strongly believe.
Gadarene, thanks. DoctorJ, I know you’ve been around a long time but on behalf of people like myself–who haven’t yet had the pleasure of your acquantainance–may I say simply that an emoticon is often worth a thousand words? 
Sorry. I keep forgetting how blurry the line is between sarcasm and reality these days. There was a smiley there, but…um…it was eaten by the board. Yeah, that’s it.
QtM–yeah, tomorrow is the day. They just called me with the eight patients I’m picking up. Those rules actually don’t take effect until next year, dagnabit. However, my program (and a lot of IM residencies) made a lot of the same changes a few years ago, though, as night float became more popular. So it isn’t too bad. I mean, back when I was a medical student…
Dr. J
Have at it, then, Dr J.. You’ll do fine.
Meanwhile, I can only wish that public opinion would be offended by overt religious fundamentalism on the part of the president.
Sorry, Mandelstam, maybe I didn’t make my terror clear in my earlier post – what I was trying to get at is that I was scared shitless of W potential judiciary appointees before, and the announcement didn’t actually make it any worse. As an atheist myself, I wouldn’t want a religious litmus test or (as a potentially aspiring judge someday) to see judges barred based on their religious views, either way. I even think that getting the opinion out in the open rather than just a default might actually help, but on the other hand, if it just comes down to “politicians beat up on the atheists for public opinion”, then I’ll admit that the announcement did even more harm than a mere quiet policy of only nominating theists.
That’s interesting. Do you have any urls referencing this? Particularly interesting to me would be descriptions of the specific difficulties he has had as a reader and as a student.
For what its worth. I think he’s a great president so far, despite his lack of expertise in constitutional matters. And as an speaker, you don’t neccesarily have to be eloquent to be a good communicator.
If Bush chooses to only nominate judges who believe in God, it will be silly but not unconstitutional. The Article 6 prohibition against religious tests was passed to ensure that no laws were passed that required a person to subscribe to a certain belief in order to hold office.
This site has some interesting information on the Art. 6, Cl. 3 debates. Oliver Ellsworth, in support of prohibiting religious tests, explains how the tests were applied in England:
Even supporters of a religious test tried to distinguish it from the laws in England by arguing that the test had been “prostituted in England.”
A president can establish his own tests for nominating a person. The site I linked to indicates that the founding fathers were concerned with laws, not presidential criteria. I think their arguments against using religion as a test, constitutional or not, are very compelling. But, on the record, I think it’s clear that Art. 6, cl. 3 applies to legislative acts, not presidential criteria.
As an atheist, I find the whole thing very scary, and since the WTC attacks by religious fundamentalists not just a little ironic.
W, and our President Blair, should be doing their utmost to undermine the outmoded dependence on superstitionalist models, instead they fortify the enemy, both without and within.
…an aside…
No, no and no. You may like to use them, that would be your choice. I usually avoid them. If you read my posts you have to pay attention, I’m not going to flag every nuance because the target audience is too indifferent to read it in context, and moreover not every intendable nuance is denotable by the dozen or so offered emoticons.
Life’s but a walking shadow:confused:, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage:(
And then is heard no more:rolleyes:: it is a tale
Told by an idiot:smack:, full of sound and fury:mad:,
Signifying nothing:eek:.
AKOHL said, “I think he’s a great president so far, despite his lack of expertise in constitutional matters. And as an speaker, you don’t neccesarily have to be eloquent to be a good communicator.”
I would think that at the very least, we should require the president of the most powerful country in the world to have a high degree of expertise in constitutional matters. But maybe I’m being too rough on him, huh?
Maybe so TGU, but you’re no Shakespeare. When I skim the threads I like a few signposts along the way. I don’t have the time or interest to cogitate deeply on every post in GD, much less SDMB. And irony can be tough to pick up in a written medium.