and your opinion still means as much as it did last post.
you have your opinion and narrow read. i have my opinion and broad definition. your entitled to your opinion. i believe its wrong.
I have a Linq transmitter under the skin in my chest. They’re constantly monitoring my heart. My heart actually stopped for 4 seconds once. they called the wife wondering what I was doing. I was watching TV, I never noticed anything. Doctor said: it’s not unusual?
Sheesh, no white lights no ancestors; just an episode of Lone Star Law!
Well, Barrett is a Catholic, and if she gets in that will make 6 in the SCOTUS, which is quite interesting. Most Catholics are far from rabid in their faith, a lot of us barely practice at all. We do have some nutters, but they are by far in the minority.
Opus Dei, for instance, can be pretty wild.
I don’t think it is out of the bounds of reason to ask her if she thinks her husband has dominion over her. That could potentially mean he is being seated and not her, and that wouldn’t be a good thing. But I doubt that is the case.
From what I have read, she seems like a decent choice, given the fact that the GOP went against their word and are rushing this forward.
It could be a lot worse than her, that is for sure.
Asking a nominee questions about their faith falls under the first amendment only in the sense that the Senator asking the question can’t be prevented from asking it.
And the Senate’s ability to question nominees is most certainly a political question.
1 Like
All opinions are not equal.
no religious test. period. none of their damned business.
i agree, yours is inferior
1 Like
A nominee is within their rights to refuse to answer the question.
2 Likes
the point religious bigots don’t get is… why go there?
you can get a good read about the nominee asking cases about precedents in the court and requiring an answer. there is no good reason to question a persons faith other than to smear. its ■■■■■■■ disgusting.
Your opinion appears to based on emotion. What you feel should be.
Mine is based on the law.
1 Like
yours is based on a narrow read of the test clause that is untested in the law. it is your opinion and nothing more.
But they’ll make it their business. Harris sits on the committee. It’ll be interesting to watch her navigate the political waters to see if she gives the candidate the Kavanaugh ambush or tread lightly considering the apparent nominee’s gender and religious beliefs.
Harris seems to always approach things with a prosecutorial aggressiveness. That tactic could backfire.
President Trump needs to nominate her and the senate needs to immediately have the vote. Nothing else is required !
3 Likes
But here’s the thing - you are the one making the positive claim that it is unconstitutional. You’ve provided no precedent, or even any arguments other than “this is what I think it means.”
This issue will never be in front of a judge. Senators will continue to ask whatever questions they like during confirmation hearings, and no amount of stamping your feet and repeating your opinion will change that.
1 Like
Takes her off the campaign trail. Not that she is saying much there.
We will get a better POV of her during the confirmation. Up to her to make it count.
you claimed yours is based on law and precedent, you should have no problem finding the cases where the courts said questioning a person about their faith is not a religious test.
no?
You understand that’s not how this works, right?
The fact that a specific fact pattern has never been adjudicated does not mean there is no precedent to interpret it.
Religious Test is a term with a well-known legal meaning - specifically, a law that places a religious requirement for an office holder or employee.
It is not even clear how your interpretation could possibly be enforced.
1 Like
If this issue were somehow magically to appear in front of a judge, and I was asked to brief this argument, I would lay out at least three distinct legal arguments.
-
The case should be dismissed for lack of standing on the part of whoever brought the case, because it is hard to imagine that anyone would have legal standing.
-
Failing that, the case should be dismissed because it is non-justiciable. There is no question of “law” involved, just politics.
-
Failing that, the term “religious test” is a well-understood common-law term, both in its use today, and at the time of the Founding Fathers. Textually, there is no getting around that.
1 Like
That’s about as much work as I’m going to put into this right now. If you want me to do more research for you, my going rate for this sort of thing is $50 an hour.
you claimed precedent, show your work. until then what we have is a narrow read on the clause from you, and a broader read from me. your read has no more or less basis in law than mine.
