Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has Bush Applied A Religious Test in Selecting Miers?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:41 PM
Original message
Has Bush Applied A Religious Test in Selecting Miers?
Sure looks like it--here's what he said:

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

Only trouble is, the Article VI of the Constitution says you can't do that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, at least it wasn't a LITMUS test!!!
Or a rabbit test!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. and it's surprising that * doesn't know the constitution or even
give a shit what it says? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. That would not apply here.
The religious test has to be by statute or by procedure. This was a personal religious test for a nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Still, it's unprecedneted in modern times, no?
Nominating someone to the SCOTUS specifically because of their religious beliefs? It seems positively un-American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Maybe - Maybe not.
I don't think we can know that. A President makes that decision for personal reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. But to admit it openly--might as well appoint Falwell or Robertson, no?
It's a naked attempt to turn the court into a religious tribunal, seems to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Of course it is.
And this is why the filibuster exists.

IF we have the spine to use it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. woops...
Ignoring the constitution again? Damn them!

I wonder if the constitution comes in toilet paper roll form?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. Why do you need to ask that question?
You *know* that he would not nominate anybody but a lunatic fundy wacko. The loonier the better. There *is* an unconstitutional religious litmus test for this White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abbeyco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. Uh, it just exemplifies the fact
that even though he wants a strict constructionist to interpret the constitution, he has absolutely no effing clue what it means.

Maybe a true strict constructionist could inform him of this fact...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. That's because he's so effing dumb
and unread and "uneducated" in the "Liberal Arts Education" or "Classical Education" or "Jesuit Education" sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
11. The constitution bans exclusionary tests only.
The Senate exists to crush inclusionary tests of this nature that serve the American people poorly in positions deemed important enough to require confirmation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough already Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. Why is nobody outraged over this on our side?
If this religious nut Miers gets on the bench, you can kiss a woman's right to choose goodbye. And if we are waiting for the repukes to kill this nomination, we are sadly mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kalyanvenkat Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
14. Is this legal?
Edited on Wed Oct-12-05 06:45 PM by kalyanvenkat
When I used to work in the US, all companies had to bide by Federal law on equal opportunities which state
"Federal laws and regulations, state laws and regulations and Executive Orders make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, age, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, arrest record, conviction record, disability, membership in the national guard, state defense force or any other reserve component of the military forces of the United States or this State, use or nonuse of lawful products off company's premises during nonworking hours or status as a special disabled veteran, veteran of the Vietnam era, recently separated veteran or veteran who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized (collectively, "covered veterans"), or other legally protected status, as required by law. "

Now bush openly says that Religion is a factor in Ms.Miers's nomination. So it implies that if you are an american and if you are a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim you don't have a chance. If this is not discrimination what else is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Hi kalyanvenkat!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC