People Of Praise ( Amy Barrett )

[qui_est_ce]

Has any other SCJ been as tied to religion as she has?

Antonin Scalia.

And he has a son who is a Catholic priest.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Let’s be real…if ACB said she aborted her last child, the Dems would not have a problem with her

This is what scares them the most.

Let’s not forget the conspiracy theories about Sara Palin’s son Trig.

 

[Pattylt]

What tenet of Catholicism conflicts with our constitution?

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.

 

[Victoria33]

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.

I think someone already posted it, there are suppose to be no “religious tests” in government. However, the terminology is.

Right, if someone has a view on any of those items mentioned in your post, then ask them but maybe don’t bring religion into it.

 

[Pattylt]

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.

@PaulinVA already answered this…

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Let’s not forget the conspiracy theories about Sara Palin’s son Trig.

ah found it…

 

[Victoria33]

already answered this…

Is he a lawyer? What’s the back up? This has been said to violate the religious test by lawyers.

‘Religious Test’: Ted Cruz Blasts Cory Booker for Violating Judicial Nominee’s Constitutional Rights​

'Religious Test': Ted Cruz Blasts Cory Booker for Violating Judicial Nominee's Constitutional Rights | CBN News

Cruz was also attorney for TX for an extended time as Solicitor General of TX and he brought and won cases at the Supreme Court.

 

[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.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

Let’s be real…if ACB said she aborted her last child, the Dems would not have a problem with her

This is what scares them the most.

Great quote from ACB speaking about adopting her son, at the same time just finding out she was pregnant;

“What greater thing can you do than raise children? That’s where you have your greatest impact on the world.”

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.

 

[Nepperhan]

Was that Muslim a constitutional conservative?

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?

 

[Nepperhan]

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

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?

 

[Nepperhan]

But the reality is, Judge Barrett is not the one making a big deal of her religion, the Democrats are.

Huh? Look, every nominee’s publications and statements are reviewed. Barrett wrote on Catholicism vis a vis judging. She brought up the subject.

 

[JonNC]

Does it make a difference?

The only difference. If an American Muslim is a candidate for anything, that’s all I care about.
Will he or she defend the basic principles of the republic:
Individual rights and limited government?

That’s the point. Nothing else matters. If someone thinks that person being Muslim matters, they’re wrong. Just because majority Muslim countries usually do not honor individual rights, that doesn’t mean all Muslims do not.

 

[Cathoholic]

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.

You beat me to it Victoria33!

 

[Nepperhan]

If an American Muslim is a candidate for anything, that’s all I care about.

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.

 

[Suudy]

This discussion about Article VI sounds much more like a discussion about enforcement. I’ve done some digging into discussions of law, and I’ve found a few things regarding the religious test.

First, the relevant portion of Article VI:

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.

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:

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.

And there is some discussion there about Kennedy. But I’ve found nothing related to religious tests otherwise.

Now, as to whether Booker or Feinstein or any others are skirting the line about requiring a religious test, it comes down to enforcement. If anyone thinks they are violating Article VI, the only people that can do anything about it might be a) ACB herself, b) the Senate itself, or c) the senators’ states themselves.

As for a), she might be able to claim some sort of violation of her rights under Article VI. But what would be the remedy? I don’t see any court taking this up, even if it could be proven that any senator applied any sort of religious test.

For b), the senate itself could decided to expel those they think were involved in any religious test. What do you think the odds of that happening are?

Finally c), the states could recall their senator. Do you think that would happen either?

Effectively, Article VI restrictions have no teeth. For my part, I think it a waste of time to bring it up for anything other that rhetoric and political gamesmanship. Which is what this entire discussion is about.

 

[Nepperhan]

That’s the point. Nothing else matters.

I see. You are determining judicial qualifications. Many senators (and the Constitution) have different standards.

If someone thinks that person being Muslim matters, they’re wrong.

OK

Just because majority Muslim countries usually do not honor individual rights, that doesn’t mean all Muslims do not.

And off we go on a tangent.

 

[JonNC]

Tell me that’s all that others care about.

Obviously not, or this thread wouldn’t be here. Consistency is important. The issue of religion is irrelevant.

BTW: Take note that I didn’t accuse you of whataboutism.

Or a tangent.

And off we go on a tangent.

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 way

 

[Pattylt]

Look, I’m not a lawyer and I have no idea if Paulin VA ever studied law.

You are all mostly conservative Catholics and are pleased with her nomination. I’m not against her either, I think she maybe quite a good choice.

But, I’m also a secularist. As a secularist, I’m concerned at any possibility that could have decisions that move the fence between separation of church and state. I, obviously, don’t want that to happen. I hope it doesn’t happen with her in the SC. I, personally, feel that it’s appropriate to ask questions to assure this constitutional right continues. I’m going to bow out of this discussion now. I don’t there is anything more I need to contribute.

 

[Victoria33]

I’m going to bow out of this discussion now. I don’t there is anything more I need to contribute.

Please reconsider staying. You have had very valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.