Judges

[Briareos]

Oh for the love of...


Ok Justice Brown so looney and right wing that she was elected in California. That the only bad things the left can dig up on her is comments she made in speaches that had nothing to do with her decisions she made on the bench here.

Oh and lets not forget the memo (and yes yes the Democrats accidently left it out open on the computer network where a Republican staffer saw it.) where the Democrats block Estrada because A. He left nothing in his record that they could attack him on B. He Latino and C. He might be a Supreme Court pick.

And then there is William Pryor who seems to be blocked entirely because he's got "deeply held religious beliefs"

And lets not forget Owens who ruled that yes Parents do have a right to be notified before their children get a medical procedure.

[bartl]

And then there is William Pryor who seems to be blocked entirely because he's got "deeply held religious beliefs"
That can't be true. It's explicitly forbidden in the body of the Constitution.

[mjm1231]

I assume you're referring to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". But your conclusion sounds an awful lot like "legislating from the bench". I don't read anything that prevents them from considering those beliefs, and congress isn't making a law that persons with religious convictions should be blocked.

In any conflict between religious beliefs and the constitution and laws of the US, I would like to know that a judge would always choose the law. If someone holds their religious beliefs to be more important than those laws, then they may not be fit to be a judge.

[Briareos]

Numerous leftist groups and Democrat Senators have said that was their main reason for blocking his nomination.

[bartl]

I assume you're referring to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Nope. I said BODY of the Constitution, not the amendments. Article VI, clause 3: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[NatGertler]

Numerous leftist groups and Democrat Senators have said that was their main reason for blocking his nomination.Really? Care to point to actual reasonable-source quotes for those Senators, citing his religion (as opposed to his stated beliefs about legal matters) as the reason?

[mjm1231]

Nope. I said BODY of the Constitution, not the amendments. Article VI, clause 3: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Surely you're not claiming that a certain religion is being required as qualification? I thought it was the opposite... ;)

Anyway, subordinate clauses don't mean the same thing when you remove them from the sentence they are subordinate to. Take a look at the whole article: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.
The meaning I get from that is that a specific religious belief cannot be made a requirement, and in this context it might be primarily that the specific oath of office need not be a specific religious oath (ie, place your hand on a Bible).

Using a broader interpretation, if they were disqualifying a nominee based on the mere fact of their religious beliefs, or because of specific religious beliefs, (such as disqualifying someone for being a Wiccan or Satanist) then that would violate the constitution. If the question is whether the canditate's religious beliefs are so deeply held that he would place them above the laws and constitution of the US, then that is exactly in keeping with the Article VI, clause 3.

It's been a long long time since I read the constitution. Thanks for reminding me of this bullet against the "US was founded on Christian principles" claim.

[Briareos]

Really? Care to point to actual reasonable-source quotes for those Senators, citing his religion (as opposed to his stated beliefs about legal matters) as the reason?

Here you go.

"His beliefs are so well known, so deeply held," charged his chief antagonist, Sen. Charles Schumer, "that it's very hard to believe -- very hard to believe -- that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, 'I will follow the law.' "

[Paul McEnery]

Here you go.
As mjm pointed out, that's exactly why he's disqualified.

It may not seem obvious to you, but for many of us, his beliefs amount to:

"When I'm not wearing my foil helmet, communists will steal my cornflakes."

[Briareos]

So basically Christians need not apply for being judges...

[WatsonGlenn]

So basically Christians need not apply for being judges...


Thats what he said. Especially Christians who go to Chrurch and really believe. Its sick is'nt it?

[Briareos]

BTW you guys do know he ordered the removel of that Ten Comandments monument a couple of years ago.

[bartl]

Using a broader interpretation, if they were disqualifying a nominee based on the mere fact of their religious beliefs, or because of specific religious beliefs, (such as disqualifying someone for being a Wiccan or Satanist) then that would violate the constitution.
And that's all that I was saying (if you read my original comment).

[fumetti]

So basically Christians need not apply for being judges...

Not if they intend to use the Bible instead of the law as their source of judgment. (If they want to be preachers, they should build a church. Not convert benches into pulpits.)

The Framers of the Constitution were careful to limit anyone using the law as a secular enforcement tool of religious oppression.

These right-wing judges are Hell-bent to destroy those limitations. And the GOP is happy to help them, since once one wall is knocked down the rest go pretty easily. An untouchable/unaccountable wealthy elite is the goal, and if they can use misguided religious fanatics as advance shock troops then all the better.

[NatGertler]

Here you go.Given that the request was "Care to point to actual reasonable-source quotes for those Senators, citing his religion (as opposed to his stated beliefs about legal matters) as the reason?", and you provided a quote...
with no reasonable source to verify it
that was only one Senator, as opposed to Senators
does not mention religion
...then I have trouble seeing how it's a response to my request. In fact, it makes it look like you really cannot support the claims that you make, that you are either buying into or simply generating some sort of unfounded claims of victimization.

[Steven Grant]

By the way, Briareos, part of your argument is based on a very convenient mischaracterization. In fact, quite a few right wingers and loonies, and even right wing loonies, get elected in California. For every Santa Monica in the state, there are a dozen San Bernadinos, and right wingers get elected to office frequently. Right wingers are frequently elected to the governor's office there; in fact two of our better known right wing presidents of the last 40 years were in the California governor's office first. The only person who might be surprised that a loony right wing judge could get elected in California is someone who doesn't know California. It's not all peaceniks, treehuggers and movie stars, y'know. It's not even PREDOMINANTLY them...

[blast_front]

It's not even PREDOMINANTLY them...

I guess you could count Bob Dornan as a liberal...

...if your politics were a bit to the right of Hitler's.

[NatGertler]

Yeah, California has the in-state equivalent of the "flyover states"; to outsiders, California seems to be predominantly L.A. and San Francisco, particularly in political matters. However, in between those (and to the sides) we have lots of small towns, lots of farmland, lots of desert... in some ways, California is a pretty good snapshot of America.

[Wig of Doom]

Yeah, California has the in-state equivalent of the "flyover states"; to outsiders, California seems to be predominantly L.A. and San Francisco, particularly in political matters. However, in between those (and to the sides) we have lots of small towns, lots of farmland, lots of desert... in some ways, California is a pretty good snapshot of America.

Sorta, but you gotta remember that B-1 Bob came from Orange County. That isn't really flyover country.

This (in conjunction with the US of Canada/Jesusland jokes (or perhaps wishful thinking) going around after the last election) reminds me of the Northern California secessionist movement: they want to basically make a new state out of all the counties Sacramento and northwards, owing to the stinkin' liberalism of the big cities in CA. It's hard for me to believe, though, that the people living up there don't get a hell of a lot more moneywise than they would on their own. Not to mention that their new state (Reddingornia?) would include Arcata, which must be the most liberal town in the country.

[NatGertler]

No, you don't have to get very far away from L.A. proper to be in conservative territory, as with OC. I live in Thousand Oaks, just outside the L.A. county line, and our national political voting certainly skews conservative.

I do think there's much to be said for dividing California; it is far too big and unweildy as a single state.

[Steven Grant]

Yes, Bob represented Orange County, but he was originally elected in West Los Angeles. OC was the second run for him.

[Wig of Doom]

I do think there's much to be said for dividing California; it is far too big and unweildy as a single state.

Where would you slice it, Nat?

I live in one of the rotten old cities of the East coast now, but I grew up in the Bay Area, so I have a native's curiosity.

[NatGertler]

Where would you slice it, Nat?That depends on my mood. When I'm merely in a fun, politically experimental mood, I wanna make San Francisco a state, perhaps even its own country...

[Steven Grant]

The tri-California division being bandied about a few years ago -- there was some genuine political push for the idea -- was Logland, Fogland and Smogland. If you've got any knowledge of California, you can pretty much figure out where the breaklines on the map are.

[badMike]

Logland, Fogland and Smogland.That's really funny. Tho' not so funny that I do live in Smogland...

Also apparently known as Shakeyland today (and not because of the gross pizza chain).

[Briareos]

By the way, Briareos, part of your argument is based on a very convenient mischaracterization. In fact, quite a few right wingers and loonies, and even right wing loonies, get elected in California. For every Santa Monica in the state, there are a dozen San Bernadinos, and right wingers get elected to office frequently. Right wingers are frequently elected to the governor's office there; in fact two of our better known right wing presidents of the last 40 years were in the California governor's office first. The only person who might be surprised that a loony right wing judge could get elected in California is someone who doesn't know California. It's not all peaceniks, treehuggers and movie stars, y'know. It's not even PREDOMINANTLY them...

Yeah but those are more localized elections. I'm pretty sure Judges get elected statewide here. Sure there are conservative pockets here but you can't get elected to statewide office if your a true conservative here.

[Briareos]

I was watching batman Begins earlier today when i 5.3 earthquake hit.

[bartl]

I was watching batman Begins earlier today when i 5.3 earthquake hit.
Did you notice the earthquake, or assume it was part of the special effects?

[Briareos]

I noticed it thought at first it might be vibration from the speakers (this was during the final part of the movie) but I knew it was one from the way the chair was shaking a bit more then just simple speaker vibration.

[Steven Grant]

Yeah but those are more localized elections. I'm pretty sure Judges get elected statewide here. Sure there are conservative pockets here but you can't get elected to statewide office if your a true conservative here.
And Nixon and Reagan and Pete Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger all know that for a fact.

The fact is that while the liberal/conservative dichotomy figures into it, most voters make their decisions on more subtle distinctions than that, and are often influenced by current conditions that may favor the more liberal candidate one time, the more conservative another. There are large pockets of liberalism in California, and large (and deep!) pockets of conservatism.

In terms of judges, almost nobody is ever even aware of what judges represent before voting on them, under most circumstances, except for the usually scant spin in the campaign literature, like "believes children's interests need to be better represented and considered in family court" or "Criminals should pay for their crimes." Few people even vote for judges, except in cases where the media makes a big deal of the race, so should, say, literature go out to conservative voters saying elect this judge of that, it doesn't automatically suggest a wellspring of liberal votes to counter it; many people just won't even hear about it.

(Do judges declare party affiliation or political persuasion on California ballots? I don't recall. It's been a long time since I voted in California.)

So Californians electing whatsername to public office really doesn't make any general statements one way or the other.