Religion
Related: About this forumObama judicial nominee questioned on abortion, religion
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/24/judicial-nominations-obama-republicans-abortion-religion/2583953/Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 6:10 p.m. EDT July 24, 2013
Republicans accuse president of trying to "pack" federal appeals court, considered the nation's second most powerful, but three seats are vacant.
(Photo: Mark Wilson Getty Images)
WASHINGTON -- The battle between President Obama and Senate Republicans over the nation's federal judgeships moved from disputes over vacancies and filibusters Wednesday to more familiar topics: abortion, contraception, sex education and religious freedom.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee continued to accuse Obama of trying to "pack" the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit -- regarded as the nation's second most powerful court -- with liberals who would take his side in fights over executive powers.
But facing Nina Pillard, a Georgetown University law professor and a veteran of liberal causes including women's rights, the panel's conservatives also attacked her articles and speeches on some of the most controversial topics pending before the federal judiciary.
The hearing made clear that Pillard may have the toughest time reaching the bench among Obama's three nominees to the D.C. Circuit, an 11-seat court now operating with four judges nominated by presidents from each party and three vacancies.
more at link
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Should NOT be able to be asked. Fuck this shit.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I would certainly not want to take those off the table when assessing a nominee from the religious right.
longship
(40,416 posts)And I already know that they're men without even looking.
Asking questions about religion is as blatant a violation of this article as one could conceive. And this is from Senators who have taken the above mentioned oath.
I am disgusted.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)they are asking her about her positions on "religious freedom".
I think that is fair game and would want to maintain the right to question a nominee on this if they appeared to be theocrats.
longship
(40,416 posts)It really is quite simple.
And there is a copious amount of case law to quote backing up a liberal interpretation to the exclusion clause as well as the freedom clause.
But one knows why the GOP asks these questions. They interpret the exclusion clause as limited to specific religious sects while not limiting the use of legislative fiat to endorse religion in general. Of course, that's apparently only as long as the religion includes Jesus as savior. Moslems need not apply. Jews are tolerated one supposes. The rest are basically ignored. Non-believers are utterly evil.
That's the Republican First Amendment. It's why they ask such questions. They're just dog whistles.
okasha
(11,573 posts)especially appeals judges, in effect make law. That's how Roe, Loving and other landmark cases got to be "settled law." Like cbayer, I wouldn't want anyone making "settled law" or "case law" who was a Dominionist or other brand of theocrat.
longship
(40,416 posts)The danger you cite is too likely with them in power.
I am with you all on this one.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)questioning her along these lines.
But in doing so, I think they are showing their cards. I think more and more americans are becoming repulsed by those that are pushing a christian theocracy. They still have and will always have their supporters, but I think the tide is turning.