HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Message auto-removed

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 04:47 PM

 

Message auto-removed

15 replies, 1079 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Name removed (Original post)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 04:51 PM

1. Religious tests for government office are banned by the Constitution.

Article VI, paragraph 3:

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.

You will need to get that dropped before you can impose your religious requirements.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #1)


Response to Name removed (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 04:55 PM

3. Wow, just wow!

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 04:59 PM

8. Look at that. You and I agree again.

This poster appears to be demanding that we replace justices of one faith with those of his choosing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to last1standing (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 05:00 PM

9. Lol. well I knew we agreed on a few things.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 04:58 PM

7. Well I don't like every SC decision...

But they are all highly educated in the field of law whether you like them or not. It is immature to call them "morons." And no one, but no one, ever gets anywhere in life doing so. People like that end up sitting on a bar seat at 7 a.m by themselves yelling at the TV set.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 05:01 PM

10. Maybe we could give him Thomas.

As a law student, I've read many holdings and dissents by Thomas and I've yet to find one that made sense.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 05:08 PM

12. Are you saying that there should be a change in qualifications that would include a religious test?

Really?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Original post)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 04:57 PM

4. Test for a 'stay' is a legal test.

Sorry that so many assume justices make these sometimes difficult decisions on other bases.

I think she did the right thing, and I'm Jewish. Does that disqualify me from serving?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Original post)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 04:57 PM

5. This presumes that the decision was based on her Catholicism

 

and not her objective interpretation of the constitution.

It could very well be that she has legitimate constitutional questions even if I (we) don't agree.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Original post)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 04:58 PM

6. Would a couple of Southern Baptists make it better?

Or a Hindi and a Muslim? Should Animism be represented on the Court or maybe voodoo and Santeria?

The problem isn't with the religious makeup of the Court, the problem is with the majority using their ideology instead of the Constitution as their primary guideline for making decisions. As I explained to you in another thread, Sotomayer made the right call based on at least 25 years of precedent. She would have been negligent if she did not place a stay on allowing the ACA to force religious orgs to pay for contraception before the issue could be brought to the full court. While I would hope SCOTUS reverses precedent and overturns the holdings in Amos and Hosannah-Tabor, that call should not be made by a single justice.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Original post)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 05:04 PM

11. No, diversity is not the issue. All Catholic, all Protestant, all....whatever. Who cares. It MATTERS

 

ONLY when a religious belief is used to assess a secular law.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 1, 2014, 05:13 PM

14. I think that would be great but a religious test is not appropriate.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #14)