Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Antonin Scalia.Has any other SCJ been as tied to religion as she has?
And he has a son who is a Catholic priest.
Antonin Scalia.Has any other SCJ been as tied to religion as she has?
This is what scares them the most.Let’s be real…if ACB said she aborted her last child, the Dems would not have a problem with her
That’s the million dollar question isn’t it. I don’t know. It could include the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and others. At some point, these questions will need to be answered through the reading of the constitution and existing law and abortion already has been.What tenet of Catholicism conflicts with our constitution?
I think someone already posted it, there are suppose to be no “religious tests” in government. However, the terminology is.That’s the million dollar question isn’t it. I don’t know. It could include the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and others. At some point, these questions will need to be answered through the reading of the constitution and existing law and abortion already has been.
I understand that Catholics want her decisions based on her Catholicism. I want her decisions to be based on what’s allowed or not within the constitution using her best legal arguments but not her catholic dogmas. Is there a difference? I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer that can shush out these finer points and it’s not my call anyway.
@PaulinVA already answered this…And?
What religious test is being applied to Barrett by the government? She was nominated. She’s on the Hill today. No religious test.
How individual senators vote isn’t covered by Article VI.
ah found it…Let’s not forget the conspiracy theories about Sara Palin’s son Trig.
Is he a lawyer? What’s the back up? This has been said to violate the religious test by lawyers.already answered this…
‘Religious Test’: Ted Cruz Blasts Cory Booker for Violating Judicial Nominee’s Constitutional Rights
Great quote from ACB speaking about adopting her son, at the same time just finding out she was pregnant;KMC:![]()
This is what scares them the most.Let’s be real…if ACB said she aborted her last child, the Dems would not have a problem with her
She’s a happy Catholic-Christian who actually lives her faith. This and her view of children make her despised by some (many?) on the left.“What greater thing can you do than raise children? That’s where you have your greatest impact on the world.”
Does it make a difference? Obama was the president and gets to make nominations. You think that the nominees stance on constitutional conservatism came into consideration? Do you think the nominee was treated in the same manner as others of different religions?Was that Muslim a constitutional conservative?
Think of the fact that conservative Republicans blocked the naming of a Catholic as chaplain of the House of Representatives until 2000 or so. Was that an unconstitutional religious test?Paul, what do you make of this part of Article VI of the Constitution:
" no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
@nepperhan, too
Huh? Look, every nominee’s publications and statements are reviewed. Barrett wrote on Catholicism vis a vis judging. She brought up the subject.But the reality is, Judge Barrett is not the one making a big deal of her religion, the Democrats are.
The only difference. If an American Muslim is a candidate for anything, that’s all I care about.Does it make a difference?
You beat me to it Victoria33!Sure, got it, there will be no religious tests for public office but Article VI doesn’t apply to Senators. Got it!
That makes no sense at all.
Tell me that’s all that others care about. Remember the flack when our UN ambassador was a Muslim gentleman? It was not Democrats criticizing the nomination.If an American Muslim is a candidate for anything, that’s all I care about.
Now, so far as I can tell, there are two pieces here: the oath and the religious test. The only legal discussion I’ve found regarding the religious test is related to the oath, mostly with respect to Ex parte Garland. Wikipedia says the following: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.
And there is some discussion there about Kennedy. But I’ve found nothing related to religious tests otherwise.Congress may not require religious tests for an office under the United States. Thus, Congress may include the customary words “so help me God” in an oath, but an individual would be under no compulsion to utter them, as such a requirement would constitute a religious test.
I see. You are determining judicial qualifications. Many senators (and the Constitution) have different standards.That’s the point. Nothing else matters.
OKIf someone thinks that person being Muslim matters, they’re wrong.
And off we go on a tangent.Just because majority Muslim countries usually do not honor individual rights, that doesn’t mean all Muslims do not.
Obviously not, or this thread wouldn’t be here. Consistency is important. The issue of religion is irrelevant.Tell me that’s all that others care about.
It isn’t unreasonable for people to look what majority Muslim countries do regarding governance. It is wrong to assume all Muslims would act that wayAnd off we go on a tangent.
Please reconsider staying. You have had very valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.I’m going to bow out of this discussion now. I don’t there is anything more I need to contribute.