• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Religious test for nominations?

faithful_servant said:
Yep. I'd back a Muslim judge if he/she is a strong Originalist, doesn't have a track record of legislating from the bench and wouldn't vote for a Democrat if their life depended on it :)mrgreen:).
Click to expand...
Well, at least you are willing to admit to the bias, which oddly enough is unconstitutional. Oh the hypocrisy...
 
DifferentDrummr said:
If it's so easy to know what the Constitution means, why is there a Supreme Court at all?
Click to expand...

Because there is a need for a check on bad decisions... Seriously, it's a really dumb question, so much so that you should be either very embarrassed for being that uneducated in a 7th grade civics concept or you're just trolling the thread...
 
prometeus said:
Well, at least you are willing to admit to the bias, which oddly enough is unconstitutional. Oh the hypocrisy...
Click to expand...

Are you referring to "wouldn't vote for a Democrat if their life depended on it :)mrgreen:)"?? If you are, then I guess that I should point out that the smiley ":mrgreen:" indicates that poster is making a joke. In this case, pretty much every other person who read my post understood that I was making a small self-deprecating joke at the end of my comment. But I'm pretty sure that, like another poster on this thread, you're intentionally misinterpreting my comment in order to troll.
 
faithful_servant said:
Are you referring to "wouldn't vote for a Democrat if their life depended on it :)mrgreen:)"?? If you are, then I guess that I should point out that the smiley ":mrgreen:" indicates that poster is making a joke. In this case, pretty much every other person who read my post understood that I was making a small self-deprecating joke at the end of my comment. But I'm pretty sure that, like another poster on this thread, you're intentionally misinterpreting my comment in order to troll.
Click to expand...
No, I take it at face value that you would never vote for a Democrat. The bias and hypocrisy is in the conditions you establish for someone to qualify to be a judge.
 
faithful_servant said:
Because there is a need for a check on bad decisions... Seriously, it's a really dumb question, so much so that you should be either very embarrassed for being that uneducated in a 7th grade civics concept or you're just trolling the thread...
Click to expand...

Whose "bad decisions?" These questions I'm asking I already know the answers to, and so should you if you expect to have any credibility discussing the Constitution. Seriously, it's looking doubtful at this point...
 
Northern Light said:
Most of the other judges are Christian, but they are of split opinion on most things.

A judge's religion doesn't inform us very much of how they will side on various issues.

Their duties are secular first and foremost.

Not to mention... people will take issue with anyone Obama nominates. They will find a flaw just because they hate Obama.
Click to expand...

Myself, I find a flaw with Obama nominees because I believe they are picked to further the agenda. Sadly, I don't think that's unique to Obama.
 
backpacker said:
You don't see liberals opposing conservatives judges on the issue of abortion as a religious litmus test? I do.
Click to expand...

Abortion is a legal procedure, legalized by the Supreme Court as a right to privacy, in certain instances. In order for a judge to be sworn in, he declares under oath to support the Constitution and the laws. So asking one's views about abortion is asking whether they support the law. Not much different than asking if he supports, say, the three branches of government and their duties as set forth in the Constitution, or the right of every citizen to vote. Senate panels don't normally come out and ask obvious questions like that, though. They usually know the person's positions because of prior decisions or statements or writings. That's why nominees without much in writing are often sought out...not as much to discern about the person, and not as much to attack or disagree with.

It's been my observation that Democrats generally go along with conservative judge nominees, if they're not radical and if they support the laws and Constitution, as long as they have the other necessary qualifications. After all, one of the perks of a political party winning is that that party gets to nominate judges. If the Republicans are in power, the nominees will be conservative. If the Democrats are in power, the nominees will be liberal or moderate. That is the reality.
 
jimbo said:
Myself, I find a flaw with Obama nominees because I believe they are picked to further the agenda. Sadly, I don't think that's unique to Obama.
Click to expand...

If the agenda is to diversify, that is a good thing. But I suspect he just normally considers people that are not older and white, because he himself does not fit that mold. That's what diversity does: It adds a point of view that is sometimes different. Which is a good thing.

Picking an older white man can be to further an agenda, as well. Some people think that picking anyone other than the standard old white protestant or Catholic man is somehow furthering an agenda.
 
faithful_servant said:
Because there is a need for a check on bad decisions... Seriously, it's a really dumb question, so much so that you should be either very embarrassed for being that uneducated in a 7th grade civics concept or you're just trolling the thread...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, FS, the judicial now tends to believe that it's their job to make law rather than interpret law. It worries me that I can nearly 100% of the time guess which way 6 or 7 of the nine SC justices will vote without knowing anything of the case presented.
 
JumpinJack said:
If the agenda is to diversify, that is a good thing. But I suspect he just normally considers people that are not older and white, because he himself does not fit that mold. That's what diversity does: It adds a point of view that is sometimes different. Which is a good thing.

Picking an older white man can be to further an agenda, as well. Some people think that picking anyone other than the standard old white protestant or Catholic man is somehow furthering an agenda.
Click to expand...

No its not. Judges should not carry an agenda into their job at all.
That's the job of the Congress.

What Obama is doing, and he's not the first President to do so, is picking and choosing based on the agenda. Judges should be picked solely on their ability to interpret the law. However that affects the agenda.
 
prometeus said:
No, I take it at face value that you would never vote for a Democrat. The bias and hypocrisy is in the conditions you establish for someone to qualify to be a judge.
Click to expand...

I was MAKING A JOKE, that's why I put the :mrgreen: after the comment. Got it?? You've now had it explained to you TWICE, care to troll again and go for #3??
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Whose "bad decisions?" These questions I'm asking I already know the answers to, and so should you if you expect to have any credibility discussing the Constitution. Seriously, it's looking doubtful at this point...
Click to expand...

Gee maybe all the lower court decisions that the SC overturns...???? The laws that get passed that fail to meet Constitutional muster...??? But you already know this, so why are you asking such a dumb question???
 
cpwill said:
Well. I care about how they see the law.

But yeah. Him being a Muslim, unless it means that he puts Sharia in above US law, is sorta irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Putting religious beliefs above the law is kind of a conservative, Christian thing. Hell, building religious beliefs into the law is kind of a conservative Christian thing.
 
jimbo said:
No its not. Judges should not carry an agenda into their job at all.
That's the job of the Congress.

What Obama is doing, and he's not the first President to do so, is picking and choosing based on the agenda. Judges should be picked solely on their ability to interpret the law. However that affects the agenda.
Click to expand...

It's not the JUDGE with an agenda. The JUDGE doesn't do the nominating.

Taking diversity into account as an additional factor is legitimate and is a good thing. But notwithstanding, there is nothing to indicate that Obama chose the man for any reason other than his credentials and qualifying factors, such as even temperament, highly respected, and other things. In other words, the man wasn't selected because he's Muslim. He was selected regardless of the fact that he's Muslim. HAD RELIGION NOT BEEN A TEST IN PRIOR YEARS, THERE WOULD BE MUSLIM FEDERAL JUDGES ALREADY. The fact that there aren't any lends credence to the argument that Muslims were not selected because of their religion, despite their other qualifications.

YOU think it's an agenda because YOU think he should have picked someone that fits YOUR agenda.

But diversity in anything and everything is GOOD in a democratic society that has a variety of cultures in its citizenry.
 
JumpinJack said:
It's not the JUDGE with an agenda. The JUDGE doesn't do the nominating.

Taking diversity into account as an additional factor is legitimate and is a good thing. But notwithstanding, there is nothing to indicate that Obama chose the man for any reason other than his credentials and qualifying factors, such as even temperament, highly respected, and other things. In other words, the man wasn't selected because he's Muslim. He was selected regardless of the fact that he's Muslim. HAD RELIGION NOT BEEN A TEST IN PRIOR YEARS, THERE WOULD BE MUSLIM FEDERAL JUDGES ALREADY. The fact that there aren't any lends credence to the argument that Muslims were not selected because of their religion, despite their other qualifications.

YOU think it's an agenda because YOU think he should have picked someone that fits YOUR agenda.

But diversity in anything and everything is GOOD in a democratic society that has a variety of cultures in its citizenry.
Click to expand...

You are wrong on so many levels. First. Regardless of who does the nominating, it's the judge that should interpret the law, not rewrite the agenda. Second, taking diversity into account if it's important at all, is not legitimate. Again, judges interpret. Taking diversity into account presumes another duty for the judicial. Third. If you go back to my posts, I defended the ignoring of his religion and accepting or rejecting based on his record. I went so far as to suggest that should apply to all judge nominations, including all religions. Fourth. You're partially correct. I would prefer judges selected based on their qualifications. That's my agenda. My only agenda. Obviously we differ in that opinion. You apparently believe that political appointments should be handed out based on something other than ability and record. I don't.
 
faithful_servant said:
Gee maybe all the lower court decisions that the SC overturns...???? The laws that get passed that fail to meet Constitutional muster...??? But you already know this, so why are you asking such a dumb question???
Click to expand...

But you already said that the Constitution was so obvious and easy to interpret. If that were true, how could Congress ever pass a law that doesn't "meet Constitutional muster?"

Or is your idea of Constitutional muster whatever is consistent with your own agenda?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
But you already said that the Constitution was so obvious and easy to interpret. If that were true, how could Congress ever pass a law that doesn't "meet Constitutional muster?"
Click to expand...

Simple, they don't give a rat's ass. In fact most of them view the constitution as an obstacle.
 
blaxshep said:
Simple, they don't give a rat's ass. In fact most of them view the constitution as an obstacle.
Click to expand...

A lot of them don't, but that wasn't the point. In practice, most Congresspeople who support a new law honestly believe that it will hold up as constitutional.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
But you already said that the Constitution was so obvious and easy to interpret. If that were true, how could Congress ever pass a law that doesn't "meet Constitutional muster?"

Or is your idea of Constitutional muster whatever is consistent with your own agenda?
Click to expand...

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.... YOu know full well that Congress is under no obligation to pass laws that conform with the Constitution, that's why we have checks and balances.
Can I suggest:
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Government-Politics-Guides/dp/1592578535
 
faithful_servant said:
Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.... YOu know full well that Congress is under no obligation to pass laws that conform with the Constitution, that's why we have checks and balances.
Can I suggest:
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Government-Politics-Guides/dp/1592578535
Click to expand...

Why would Congress waste so much of their own time intentionally passing an unconstitutional law? In fact, can you name ONE piece of legislation in Congressional history that was blatantly unconstitutional?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Why would Congress waste so much of their own time intentionally passing an unconstitutional law? In fact, can you name ONE piece of legislation in Congressional history that was blatantly unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

All gun control, the Patriot act and the ACA, just to start with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom