• 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?

JumpinJack

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Some people are shocked :shock: or angry :mad: that Obama has nominated a man who is a Muslim to a federal judge post. Some posters have stated that Obama doesn't believe in the Constitution!

So...just for clarification, there IS no religious test for judge nominations...per our Constitution. The Constitution presumably has that requirement (of no religious test) to protect unpopular decisions, since popular decisions would require no such protection.

Article VI of our Constitution:

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
 
This is just one huge strawman.
 
JumpinJack said:
Some people are shocked :shock: or angry :mad: that Obama has nominated a man who is a Muslim to a federal judge post. Some posters have stated that Obama doesn't believe in the Constitution!

So...just for clarification, there IS no religious test for judge nominations...per our Constitution. The Constitution presumably has that requirement (of no religious test) to protect unpopular decisions, since popular decisions would require no such protection.

Article VI of our Constitution:



Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
Click to expand...

Only thing I care about is whether or not the guy is qualified for the position.

I couldn't care less about his religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
One's religious beliefs could inform one's idea of fairness upon which many cases pivot. I have no idea what his particular religious beliefs are as the world of Islam is many and varied as is the the world of Christianity on such matters. It is certainly something those evaluating him might want to explore for any candidate.
 
TheGoverness said:
Only thing I care about is whether or not the guy is qualified for the position.

I couldn't care less about his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

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:).
 
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...

......unless the alternative is Trump?
 
TheGoverness said:
Only thing I care about is whether or not the guy is qualified for the position.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JumpinJack said:
Some people are shocked :shock: or angry :mad: that Obama has nominated a man who is a Muslim to a federal judge post. Some posters have stated that Obama doesn't believe in the Constitution!

So...just for clarification, there IS no religious test for judge nominations...per our Constitution. The Constitution presumably has that requirement (of no religious test) to protect unpopular decisions, since popular decisions would require no such protection.

Article VI of our Constitution:



Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
Click to expand...

I would suggest that there is a religious test for this nomination. I wonder if he also has the litmus test requiring belief in the nonsense called "adverse impact"?
 
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...

"Originalism": The biggest legal lie currently out there.
 
backpacker said:
One's religious beliefs could inform one's idea of fairness upon which many cases pivot. I have no idea what his particular religious beliefs are as the world of Islam is many and varied as is the the world of Christianity on such matters. It is certainly something those evaluating him might want to explore for any candidate.
Click to expand...

The exact same thing could be said of Christians and Jews. It's not a one way street.
 
jimbo said:
The exact same thing could be said of Christians and Jews. It's not a one way street.
Click to expand...

Ok, I already alluded to that in my post with "as is the the world of Christianity on such matters", so I am not sure why you think I need to be told it is not a "one way street".
 
Actually the constitution requires no *establishment* of religion, so it is the critics who would be violating it if, say, jews and christians are allowed into government (which clearly seems they have no problem with), but not muslims or atheists
 
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...

That is true, if his decisions were in accordance with shari'a law, that would be cause not only to deny his appointment, but to impeach. Same goes for christian theocrat judges such as the roy moore nut
 
backpacker said:
Ok, I already alluded to that in my post with "as is the the world of Christianity on such matters", so I am not sure why you think I need to be told it is not a "one way street".
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear.

Some Christians see anyone other than of Christian faith as not being capable of rendering a decision acceptable to them. A recent example would be Cruz stating Bible first, Constitution second. That's my one way street.

I'm troubled by both positions. Ideally a judge should eliminate all personal beliefs from their rulings. I recognize that won't happen. The system is not perfect, but it's better than whatever is in second place.
 
jimbo said:
I should have been more clear.

Some Christians see anyone other than of Christian faith as not being capable of rendering a decision acceptable to them. A recent example would be Cruz stating Bible first, Constitution second. That's my one way street.

I'm troubled by both positions. Ideally a judge should eliminate all personal beliefs from their rulings. I recognize that won't happen. The system is not perfect, but it's better than whatever is in second place.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the law is not precise and what constitutes fairness or equitable not always easily determined. This discussion happens even in criminal cases like is it fair that some 20 year old go to federal prison for pot on a mandatory sentence when the same person would get a slap on the wrist if they were charged in state court.
 
backpacker said:
Unfortunately the law is not precise and what constitutes fairness or equitable not always easily determined. This discussion happens even in criminal cases like is it fair that some 20 year old go to federal prison for pot on a mandatory sentence when the same person would get a slap on the wrist if they were charged in state court.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue against that. I've stated that the system is not perfect.

The question, though, is whether a Muslim judge can do the job. Tossing aside for a moment the religious test ban, I'd say the chances are no different than any other religion.

It's really not about the differences in laws/punishments in different courts.
 
jimbo said:
I wouldn't argue against that. I've stated that the system is not perfect.

The question, though, is whether a Muslim judge can do the job. Tossing aside for a moment the religious test ban, I'd say the chances are no different than any other religion.

It's really not about the differences in laws/punishments in different courts.
Click to expand...

You don't see liberals opposing conservatives judges on the issue of abortion as a religious litmus test? I do.
 
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...

Article 6/3

...; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Muslims or Jews or Christians cannot be excluded or favored.

But I'll toss it back to you.

You don't see Christian judges factoring in personal beliefs when ruling on abortion issues as a problem?
I do.
 
Mr Person said:
"Originalism": The biggest legal lie currently out there.
Click to expand...

Anything outside of originalism is unconstitutional. There is a clearly defined process for amending the Constitution and simply deciding that the Constitution should mean something different is amending it outside of that process. The ONLY standard for what the Constitution means has to be what it meant when it was written. If that doesn't suit you, then there is a clearly defined process for changing it.
 
jimbo said:
Article 6/3

...; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Muslims or Jews or Christians cannot be excluded or favored.

But I'll toss it back to you.

You don't see Christian judges factoring in personal beliefs when ruling on abortion issues as a problem?
I do.
Click to expand...

People get around rules all the time, especially politicians who confirm these judges. No, I don't see Judges factoring in personal religious beliefs as a problem. The system has checks within it. It is why there is an appeals process and why appeals are handled by panels of jurists instead of individuals.
 
backpacker said:
People get around rules all the time, especially politicians who confirm these judges. No, I don't see Judges factoring in personal religious beliefs as a problem. The system has checks within it. It is why there is an appeals process and why appeals are handled by panels of jurists instead of individuals.
Click to expand...

I presume by your statements that you mean only judges who agree with you. Abortion beliefs come down to religion vs politics, not religion vs religion, but do you see a problem with liberal judges disagreeing with Christian judges?

That's rhetorical. You've already answered that. You do.

We're off topic. I believe judges should ignore their personal beliefs and rule on the law. I also recognize the fact that that often does not happen. The chances of that happening IMO are about equal whether it's a Christian or a Muslim.
 
faithful_servant said:
Anything outside of originalism is unconstitutional. There is a clearly defined process for amending the Constitution and simply deciding that the Constitution should mean something different is amending it outside of that process. The ONLY standard for what the Constitution means has to be what it meant when it was written. If that doesn't suit you, then there is a clearly defined process for changing it.
Click to expand...

If it's so easy to know what the Constitution means, why is there a Supreme Court at all?
 
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.
 
Stupid idea
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom