Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
It’s Barrett....(Democrat Hysteria Game Thread)
Comments
-
Paul Ryan is CatholicSledog said:
Raised Catholic. Mother Italian Catholic. Dad converted. Grandmother (dad's side) converted. Of course all the WOPS are Catholic. Some of the Hillbillies. Not a damn thing wrong with Catholics! Nothing to fear. The left hates religion because religion gets in the way of people worshiping politics. Of course if they get their communist utopia there will be no religion. Banned. Only the state.creepycoug said:
Honestly I can't without going and looking for it. Sounds like Barrett has a more distinct track record on those issues, which I would expect as a disciple of Scalia.Houhusky said:@creepycoug can you link to any important Lagoa decisions specifically regarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or her general view on constitutional jurisprudence?
The only thing I saw that might indicate she would have what Trump supporters or Republicans would desire is she didn't recuse herself when democrats asked her and upheld the ruling that required re-enfranchised felons to pay all financial obligations before being allowed to vote.
Seems kind of thin... idk
That said, I had never heard of either of them before this nomination round. I had heard of Kavanaugh before his appointment, probably because he was on the DC Circuit COA and I'd heard of Gorsuch before he was appointed but I don't recall in what context.
I know next to nothing about Lagoa other than her bio. Desantis is a pretty conservative guy so she'd have had to have passed his test before apppointing her to the FSC. I guess one other knock on her is that she's only been on the federal COA for a short tim, and that credential is probably more powerful than state supreme court experience for a SCTOUS appointment. And her Fla. SC stint was also short-lived. So she doesn't have a long track record on the bench.
OTOH, she was in private practice and spent time as a federal prosecutor.
OTOH, she wasn't a law clerk at the SCOTUS, which is a credential a lot of appointees have and Barrett has that.
OTOH, she's a Federalist Society chicka, so you know she has the textualist and originalist goods.
IDK, looks like he made the right choice and it's not like he's going to lose Florida for passing on Lagoa or anything.
I really have no dog in this hunt, except that my irrational fears about people who spend too much time looking at the sky for answers is well documented here in the Tug, and so irrationally I'd prefer to have somebody on the court who is conservative but who doesn't look for reasons to bring it to work. Barrett seems a little more religiously kooky, but then again, don't ever underestimate a Cuban woman's Catholicism. They bring that shit hard and heavy in Hialeah. Trust me; I know.
I find that I like looking at Barrett. So there's that.
His mistake was getting a hs job at McDonalds rather than the Family heavy construction business -
100%Swaye said:Unless Romney and some other loser we don't know about yet flip, this is all political theatre at this point. She will be seated. No amount of liberal grandstanding or hand wringing will change that.
-
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary. -
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case. -
Did Ginsburg ever rule against the ACLU on SCOTUS? She never recused herself from any case involving the group that she led for years.creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Kagan did not herself from the landmark ObamaCare case that she had argued in favor of as Solicitor General. It was a 5-4 decision.
I’m curious because these calls for recusal seem completely biased and random. -
You mean the calls for recusal that Amy Barrett herself wrote about with the dean of BC law school? Take it up with her Duck. I'm too busy filling my corporate lawyer "briefs" with filler information to try and reach her.NorthwestFresh said:
Did Ginsburg ever rule against the ACLU on SCOTUS? She never recused herself from any case involving the group that she led for years.creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Kagan did not herself from the landmark ObamaCare case that she had argued in favor of as Solicitor General. It was a 5-4 decision.
I’m curious because these calls for recusal seem completely biased and random.
But, yeah, civil liberties, healthcare are just different religions. Sure. Sounds right. -
Im willing to bet that is a lazy reference to this article from 2019; https://humanevents.com/2019/09/19/amy-coney-barrett-is-not-a-safe-pick-for-the-supreme-court/creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Zmirak there claimed Barrett argued that trial judges who are faithful to Catholic teaching “are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty” and should therefore recuse themselves from cases in which they might be required to do so. Zmirak extravagantly extrapolates from the 1998 article that Barrett as a Supreme Court justice might recuse herself from cases involving capital punishment, immigration, and abortion. (In reference to an old paper she help author in law school)
Barrett addressed religious recusal and that 1998 opinion in her 2017 hearing;
"I wrote that law review article when I was a third-year law student with one of my professors 20 years ago. It was a project that he had underway, and he invited me to work on it with him, and I was complimented that as a student he thought I was up to the task of being more than a research assistant. But I was very much the junior partner in our collaboration, and that was appropriate given our relative statures."
"Would I or could I say, sitting here today, that that article and its every particular reflects how I think about these questions today with, as you say, the benefit of 20 years of experience and also the ability to speak solely in my own voice? No, it would not."
Barrett then stated that “sitting here today, I cannot think of any cases or category of cases in which I would feel obliged to recuse on grounds of conscience.”
She also directly addressed your specific concern on a line between legal judgement and faith;
"It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law. If there is ever a conflict between a judge’s personal conviction and that judge’s duty under the rule of law, it is never, ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case rather than what the law requires. I totally reject and I have rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that, as you say, the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome.
Were I confirmed, as a judge I would decide cases according to the rule of law, beginning to end."
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/attack-on-judge-amy-coney-barrett-completely-misfires/
-
I’m agnostic and believe that liberalism is a secular cult that impacts judges’ decisions. The judiciary is just as political as the other two branches of the federal govt.creepycoug said:
You mean the calls for recusal that Amy Barrett herself wrote about with the dean of BC law school? Take it up with her Duck. I'm too busy filling my corporate lawyer "briefs" with filler information to try and reach her.NorthwestFresh said:
Did Ginsburg ever rule against the ACLU on SCOTUS? She never recused herself from any case involving the group that she led for years.creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Kagan did not herself from the landmark ObamaCare case that she had argued in favor of as Solicitor General. It was a 5-4 decision.
I’m curious because these calls for recusal seem completely biased and random.
But, yeah, civil liberties, healthcare are just different religions. Sure. Sounds right.
What are you talking about? You seem suspicious and very bigoted against religious cultists, yet accepting of secular cultists. Odd flex and extremely hypocritical.
You didn’t answer my question in your diatribe either. -
Yes, my religious bigotry is well documented here. Doesn't seem odd to me at all. Do you have a point other than the obvious?NorthwestFresh said:
I’m agnostic and believe that liberalism is a secular cult that impacts judges’ decisions. The judiciary is just as political as the other two branches of the federal govt.creepycoug said:
You mean the calls for recusal that Amy Barrett herself wrote about with the dean of BC law school? Take it up with her Duck. I'm too busy filling my corporate lawyer "briefs" with filler information to try and reach her.NorthwestFresh said:
Did Ginsburg ever rule against the ACLU on SCOTUS? She never recused herself from any case involving the group that she led for years.creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Kagan did not herself from the landmark ObamaCare case that she had argued in favor of as Solicitor General. It was a 5-4 decision.
I’m curious because these calls for recusal seem completely biased and random.
But, yeah, civil liberties, healthcare are just different religions. Sure. Sounds right.
What are you talking about? You seem suspicious and very bigoted against religious cultists, yet accepting of secular cultists. Odd flex and extremely hypocritical.
You didn’t answer my question in your diatribe either.
You mean your question about case dispositions that you are free to look up yourself? Again, this is Washington; we pump our own gas here Duck.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my big-time corporate lawyer job and write some fluffy briefs. -
Sounds like she backed off an old law review article. Certainly not the first time a candidate for the federal bench has had to do that. I'm sure we'd all agree that's there no point in going back that far in anyone's legal career, no matter how much we liked or disliked them.Houhusky said:
Im willing to bet that is a lazy reference to this article from 2019; https://humanevents.com/2019/09/19/amy-coney-barrett-is-not-a-safe-pick-for-the-supreme-court/creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Zmirak there claimed Barrett argued that trial judges who are faithful to Catholic teaching “are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty” and should therefore recuse themselves from cases in which they might be required to do so. Zmirak extravagantly extrapolates from the 1998 article that Barrett as a Supreme Court justice might recuse herself from cases involving capital punishment, immigration, and abortion. (In reference to an old paper she help author in law school)
Barrett addressed religious recusal and that 1998 opinion in her 2017 hearing;
"I wrote that law review article when I was a third-year law student with one of my professors 20 years ago. It was a project that he had underway, and he invited me to work on it with him, and I was complimented that as a student he thought I was up to the task of being more than a research assistant. But I was very much the junior partner in our collaboration, and that was appropriate given our relative statures."
"Would I or could I say, sitting here today, that that article and its every particular reflects how I think about these questions today with, as you say, the benefit of 20 years of experience and also the ability to speak solely in my own voice? No, it would not."
Barrett then stated that “sitting here today, I cannot think of any cases or category of cases in which I would feel obliged to recuse on grounds of conscience.”
She also directly addressed your specific concern on a line between legal judgement and faith;
"It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law. If there is ever a conflict between a judge’s personal conviction and that judge’s duty under the rule of law, it is never, ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case rather than what the law requires. I totally reject and I have rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that, as you say, the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome.
Were I confirmed, as a judge I would decide cases according to the rule of law, beginning to end."
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/attack-on-judge-amy-coney-barrett-completely-misfires/
Sounds like she's saying the right things now.
I'm sure she'll be a fine Justice of the SCOTUS. -
That’s a wrap. People forget she had a full hearing in 2017. They forget that.Houhusky said:
Im willing to bet that is a lazy reference to this article from 2019; https://humanevents.com/2019/09/19/amy-coney-barrett-is-not-a-safe-pick-for-the-supreme-court/creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Zmirak there claimed Barrett argued that trial judges who are faithful to Catholic teaching “are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty” and should therefore recuse themselves from cases in which they might be required to do so. Zmirak extravagantly extrapolates from the 1998 article that Barrett as a Supreme Court justice might recuse herself from cases involving capital punishment, immigration, and abortion. (In reference to an old paper she help author in law school)
Barrett addressed religious recusal and that 1998 opinion in her 2017 hearing;
"I wrote that law review article when I was a third-year law student with one of my professors 20 years ago. It was a project that he had underway, and he invited me to work on it with him, and I was complimented that as a student he thought I was up to the task of being more than a research assistant. But I was very much the junior partner in our collaboration, and that was appropriate given our relative statures."
"Would I or could I say, sitting here today, that that article and its every particular reflects how I think about these questions today with, as you say, the benefit of 20 years of experience and also the ability to speak solely in my own voice? No, it would not."
Barrett then stated that “sitting here today, I cannot think of any cases or category of cases in which I would feel obliged to recuse on grounds of conscience.”
She also directly addressed your specific concern on a line between legal judgement and faith;
"It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law. If there is ever a conflict between a judge’s personal conviction and that judge’s duty under the rule of law, it is never, ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case rather than what the law requires. I totally reject and I have rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that, as you say, the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome.
Were I confirmed, as a judge I would decide cases according to the rule of law, beginning to end."
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/attack-on-judge-amy-coney-barrett-completely-misfires/ -
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people. -
alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties. -
She has an annoying voice
-
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ... -
I made the same point in much more direct manner to @creepycoug but as most attorneys I’ve dealt with and have known in my life and career, they think their opinions are factual and other opinions contrary to theirs are to be dismissed. It’s a mindset.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...
-
Yeah, sure.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...
And? What's your point? -
Lol. You write like a retard sometimes. And you obsess about things. Tighten it up Corky.NorthwestFresh said:
I made the same point in much more direct manner to @creepycoug but as most attorneys I’ve dealt with and have known in my life and career, they think their opinions are factual and other opinions contrary to theirs are to be dismissed. It’s a mindset.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ... -
My apologies. I left this for too long and couldn't come back to it. Meant to add the following:creepycoug said:
Yeah, sure.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...
And? What's your point?
I'm not administering a religious test. I feel like you're trying to talk me into confirming this broad. You don't need to do that. I'm not on a witch hunt here.
For the record, I do reject your categorical conflation of humanist concerns with religious as mostly rhetoric. Like Jefferson, I recognize a distinction between natural rights (to worship privately) and social duty. So, no, they're not the same to me. But like I said, we've litigated that one in the Tug.
Out of curiosity, would you pursue this point as feverishly as you are now if the appointee-to-be were some kind of non-Christian religious follower? How would a Muslim appointee feel for you? Or some other devout follower of old stories that didn't involve Jesus? You may remain consistent in your view, but I can read minds and some of your friends would be lying if they said yes. -
-
The dazzler likes to dodge easy questions. Don't be the dazzler. Should the people who want ACB disqualified from the Supreme Court because she is a practicing Catholic ban practicing environmentalists from deciding if the feds can regulate a pond in a farmer's backyard? That's my beef with the left. They are hypocrites and in this case there is a clear written prohibition from denying public office to a citizen because they don't practice your religion.creepycoug said:
My apologies. I left this for too long and couldn't come back to it. Meant to add the following:creepycoug said:
Yeah, sure.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...
And? What's your point?
I'm not administering a religious test. I feel like you're trying to talk me into confirming this broad. You don't need to do that. I'm not on a witch hunt here.
For the record, I do reject your categorical conflation of humanist concerns with religious as mostly rhetoric. Like Jefferson, I recognize a distinction between natural rights (to worship privately) and social duty. So, no, they're not the same to me. But like I said, we've litigated that one in the Tug.
Out of curiosity, would you pursue this point as feverishly as you are now if the appointee-to-be were some kind of non-Christian religious follower? How would a Muslim appointee feel for you? Or some other devout follower of old stories that didn't involve Jesus? You may remain consistent in your view, but I can read minds and some of your friends would be lying if they said yes. -
Not to argue @WestlinnDuck points but....creepycoug said:
My apologies. I left this for too long and couldn't come back to it. Meant to add the following:creepycoug said:
Yeah, sure.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...
And? What's your point?
I'm not administering a religious test. I feel like you're trying to talk me into confirming this broad. You don't need to do that. I'm not on a witch hunt here.
For the record, I do reject your categorical conflation of humanist concerns with religious as mostly rhetoric. Like Jefferson, I recognize a distinction between natural rights (to worship privately) and social duty. So, no, they're not the same to me. But like I said, we've litigated that one in the Tug.
Out of curiosity, would you pursue this point as feverishly as you are now if the appointee-to-be were some kind of non-Christian religious follower? How would a Muslim appointee feel for you? Or some other devout follower of old stories that didn't involve Jesus? You may remain consistent in your view, but I can read minds and some of your friends would be lying if they said yes.
The "wall of separation" is not in the constitution. Both Washington and Adams wrapped the executive in a blanket of open Christianity while still asserting a freedom of religion. Even Jefferson regularly attended church service held in congress' House during both his terms. Jefferson's personal views in a letter, not directly about the 1st amendment, are irrelevant. IMO the courts usage of Jefferson's innocuous letter, 100 years later, to determine the singular totality of the 1st was the court reading their own opinion into the law.
Historically, Jefferson's wall of separation was the evolution of Martin Luther's Separation of Two Kingdoms doctrine and the first use of the wall analogy was Puritan theologian Roger Williams in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenant of Persecution. Laws are created from the religious conscious of its society, they are not progenerated from a miasma of objectivity that simply exists outside the human experience... (ironically argument to the contrary is essentially a religious one.) The framers, including Jefferson, understood that the very idea of natural rights and a separate church and state was rooted in religious thought.
Therefore, my objective, secular ruling is that the 1st amendments goal was in fact to remove the state from religion NOT the religion from the state. The modern appearance that Laws are created from secular reason is just a testament to the religious and cultural thought homogeneity that has existed within the US. I don't find it possible to argue that the framers wrote about being endowed by their creator to certain specific natural rights and then attempted to create a legal system devoid of religious conscious enshrining those inherently religious rights. They fully understood that the nation's laws would (and should) be reflection of its citizens' religion(s).
The question of a different religion is a bit of a false equivalency... The constitution is rooted in Judeo-Christian values, post reformation Christianity and Scottish enlightenment ideals are directly inline with most modern Catholic beliefs. Put simply; If you grew up in a culture understanding the ten commandments then you are less likely to struggle with the ten amendments of the bill of rights.
I think its pretty ignorant to blanket treat all magically sky fairy beliefs as equally compatible with western morals or the constitution. If someone was a scientologist I would be pretty fucking worried about their seat on the Supreme Court.
TLDR: B===D~~~~ (.)(.) -
Good poast.Houhusky said:
Not to argue @WestlinnDuck points but....creepycoug said:
My apologies. I left this for too long and couldn't come back to it. Meant to add the following:creepycoug said:
Yeah, sure.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...
And? What's your point?
I'm not administering a religious test. I feel like you're trying to talk me into confirming this broad. You don't need to do that. I'm not on a witch hunt here.
For the record, I do reject your categorical conflation of humanist concerns with religious as mostly rhetoric. Like Jefferson, I recognize a distinction between natural rights (to worship privately) and social duty. So, no, they're not the same to me. But like I said, we've litigated that one in the Tug.
Out of curiosity, would you pursue this point as feverishly as you are now if the appointee-to-be were some kind of non-Christian religious follower? How would a Muslim appointee feel for you? Or some other devout follower of old stories that didn't involve Jesus? You may remain consistent in your view, but I can read minds and some of your friends would be lying if they said yes.
The "wall of separation" is not in the constitution. Both Washington and Adams wrapped the executive in a blanket of open Christianity while still asserting a freedom of religion. Even Jefferson regularly attended church service held in congress' House during both his terms. Jefferson's personal views in a letter, not directly about the 1st amendment, are irrelevant. IMO the courts usage of Jefferson's innocuous letter, 100 years later, to determine the singular totality of the 1st was the court reading their own opinion into the law.
Historically, Jefferson's wall of separation was the evolution of Martin Luther's Separation of Two Kingdoms doctrine and the first use of the wall analogy was Puritan theologian Roger Williams in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenant of Persecution. Laws are created from the religious conscious of its society, they are not progenerated from a miasma of objectivity that simply exists outside the human experience... (ironically argument to the contrary is essentially a religious one.) The framers, including Jefferson, understood that the very idea of natural rights and a separate church and state was rooted in religious thought.
Therefore, my objective, secular ruling is that the 1st amendments goal was in fact to remove the state from religion NOT the religion from the state. The modern appearance that Laws are created from secular reason is just a testament to the religious and cultural thought homogeneity that has existed within the US. I don't find it possible to argue that the framers wrote about being endowed by their creator to certain specific natural rights and then attempted to create a legal system devoid of religious conscious enshrining those inherently religious rights. They fully understood that the nation's laws would (and should) be reflection of its citizens' religion(s).
The question of a different religion is a bit of a false equivalency... The constitution is rooted in Judeo-Christian values, post reformation Christianity and Scottish enlightenment ideals are directly inline with most modern Catholic beliefs. Put simply; If you grew up in a culture understanding the ten commandments then you are less likely to struggle with the ten amendments of the bill of rights.
I think its pretty ignorant to blanket treat all magically sky fairy beliefs as equally compatible with western morals or the constitution. If someone was a scientologist I would be pretty fucking worried about their seat on the Supreme Court.
TLDR: B===D~~~~ (.)(.) -
I think if a candidate for the court said that Sharia is more important than the Constitution it would be a legitimate issue.
-
More religious tolerance from the Left.
-
One can only hope they uselessly go after her for being Catholic with a vengeance.NorthwestFresh said:More religious tolerance from the Left.
-
Understood none of this. Chinned it anyway because my e-buddies did.Houhusky said:
Not to argue @WestlinnDuck points but....creepycoug said:
My apologies. I left this for too long and couldn't come back to it. Meant to add the following:creepycoug said:
Yeah, sure.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...
And? What's your point?
I'm not administering a religious test. I feel like you're trying to talk me into confirming this broad. You don't need to do that. I'm not on a witch hunt here.
For the record, I do reject your categorical conflation of humanist concerns with religious as mostly rhetoric. Like Jefferson, I recognize a distinction between natural rights (to worship privately) and social duty. So, no, they're not the same to me. But like I said, we've litigated that one in the Tug.
Out of curiosity, would you pursue this point as feverishly as you are now if the appointee-to-be were some kind of non-Christian religious follower? How would a Muslim appointee feel for you? Or some other devout follower of old stories that didn't involve Jesus? You may remain consistent in your view, but I can read minds and some of your friends would be lying if they said yes.
The "wall of separation" is not in the constitution. Both Washington and Adams wrapped the executive in a blanket of open Christianity while still asserting a freedom of religion. Even Jefferson regularly attended church service held in congress' House during both his terms. Jefferson's personal views in a letter, not directly about the 1st amendment, are irrelevant. IMO the courts usage of Jefferson's innocuous letter, 100 years later, to determine the singular totality of the 1st was the court reading their own opinion into the law.
Historically, Jefferson's wall of separation was the evolution of Martin Luther's Separation of Two Kingdoms doctrine and the first use of the wall analogy was Puritan theologian Roger Williams in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenant of Persecution. Laws are created from the religious conscious of its society, they are not progenerated from a miasma of objectivity that simply exists outside the human experience... (ironically argument to the contrary is essentially a religious one.) The framers, including Jefferson, understood that the very idea of natural rights and a separate church and state was rooted in religious thought.
Therefore, my objective, secular ruling is that the 1st amendments goal was in fact to remove the state from religion NOT the religion from the state. The modern appearance that Laws are created from secular reason is just a testament to the religious and cultural thought homogeneity that has existed within the US. I don't find it possible to argue that the framers wrote about being endowed by their creator to certain specific natural rights and then attempted to create a legal system devoid of religious conscious enshrining those inherently religious rights. They fully understood that the nation's laws would (and should) be reflection of its citizens' religion(s).
The question of a different religion is a bit of a false equivalency... The constitution is rooted in Judeo-Christian values, post reformation Christianity and Scottish enlightenment ideals are directly inline with most modern Catholic beliefs. Put simply; If you grew up in a culture understanding the ten commandments then you are less likely to struggle with the ten amendments of the bill of rights.
I think its pretty ignorant to blanket treat all magically sky fairy beliefs as equally compatible with western morals or the constitution. If someone was a scientologist I would be pretty fucking worried about their seat on the Supreme Court.
TLDR: B===D~~~~ (.)(.) -
Please please please go after her for her religion.
Please make that incredible mistake. I fucking beg you. -
Imagine your teepee, its walls are designed to create a small utopia inside, to keep out the corruption of the chaotic wilderness (politics). It would be absurd to think the walls exist to keep the sanctuary of your teepee from invading the wilderness. BUT, If the walls are not maintained, snow freely falls into the teepee, and weeds grow from the ground the sanctuary within the teepee will decay into being indistinguishable from the wilderness that swallowed it.Swaye said:
Understood none of this. Chinned it anyway because my e-buddies did.Houhusky said:
Not to argue @WestlinnDuck points but....creepycoug said:
My apologies. I left this for too long and couldn't come back to it. Meant to add the following:creepycoug said:
Yeah, sure.WestlinnDuck said:
Is it okay for an environmentalist to bring his moral view to bear on the question is a pond in a farmer's backyard a "navigable waterway". Everyone has a their own moral view. The issue is can they enforce the law with an opinion based in the law? Disqualifying Christians for being a practicing Christian should then also disqualify a practicing feminist from an abortion opinion. It's not conservatives that are arguing about an organic everchanging written Constitution and using feelings to make up non-existent Constitutional rights and then take away specific granted Constitutional rights.creepycoug said:alumni94 said:
The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson
"In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Hugo Black
So is this wall like Gortex where water can't come in but perspiration can go out? Like a one-way thing?
And by extension are you saying you're ok with Justices on the SCOTUS bringing religious views to bear in deciding cases? What are you going to say when the Muslim Justices get their guys in there? Let me know because I want to use this at my big-time lawyer cocktail parties.
=====
After requiring all federal and state legislators and officers to swear or affirm to support the federal Constitution, Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This prohibition, commonly known as the No Religious Test ...
And? What's your point?
I'm not administering a religious test. I feel like you're trying to talk me into confirming this broad. You don't need to do that. I'm not on a witch hunt here.
For the record, I do reject your categorical conflation of humanist concerns with religious as mostly rhetoric. Like Jefferson, I recognize a distinction between natural rights (to worship privately) and social duty. So, no, they're not the same to me. But like I said, we've litigated that one in the Tug.
Out of curiosity, would you pursue this point as feverishly as you are now if the appointee-to-be were some kind of non-Christian religious follower? How would a Muslim appointee feel for you? Or some other devout follower of old stories that didn't involve Jesus? You may remain consistent in your view, but I can read minds and some of your friends would be lying if they said yes.
The "wall of separation" is not in the constitution. Both Washington and Adams wrapped the executive in a blanket of open Christianity while still asserting a freedom of religion. Even Jefferson regularly attended church service held in congress' House during both his terms. Jefferson's personal views in a letter, not directly about the 1st amendment, are irrelevant. IMO the courts usage of Jefferson's innocuous letter, 100 years later, to determine the singular totality of the 1st was the court reading their own opinion into the law.
Historically, Jefferson's wall of separation was the evolution of Martin Luther's Separation of Two Kingdoms doctrine and the first use of the wall analogy was Puritan theologian Roger Williams in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenant of Persecution. Laws are created from the religious conscious of its society, they are not progenerated from a miasma of objectivity that simply exists outside the human experience... (ironically argument to the contrary is essentially a religious one.) The framers, including Jefferson, understood that the very idea of natural rights and a separate church and state was rooted in religious thought.
Therefore, my objective, secular ruling is that the 1st amendments goal was in fact to remove the state from religion NOT the religion from the state. The modern appearance that Laws are created from secular reason is just a testament to the religious and cultural thought homogeneity that has existed within the US. I don't find it possible to argue that the framers wrote about being endowed by their creator to certain specific natural rights and then attempted to create a legal system devoid of religious conscious enshrining those inherently religious rights. They fully understood that the nation's laws would (and should) be reflection of its citizens' religion(s).
The question of a different religion is a bit of a false equivalency... The constitution is rooted in Judeo-Christian values, post reformation Christianity and Scottish enlightenment ideals are directly inline with most modern Catholic beliefs. Put simply; If you grew up in a culture understanding the ten commandments then you are less likely to struggle with the ten amendments of the bill of rights.
I think its pretty ignorant to blanket treat all magically sky fairy beliefs as equally compatible with western morals or the constitution. If someone was a scientologist I would be pretty fucking worried about their seat on the Supreme Court.
TLDR: B===D~~~~ (.)(.)
The laws about how many squaw you can keep in your teepee are inherently derived from the cultural religion not from raw "logic". -
Hell - I think I get it now that someone simplified it for @Swaye
