| Author | Post |
|---|
Esau hated Jacob
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 03:09 pm |
|
On May 1, in a Senate Judiciary Committee session, Senator Charles Schumer of
New York said that J. Leon Holmes was disqualified as a candidate for a federal
judge appointment because of his "deeply held conservative religious views."
Holmes is a Catholic.
On June 11, 2004, speaking of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, a nominee for the
appellate court, Schumer said Pryor’s beliefs "are so well known, so deeply held
that it’s hard to believe that they’re not going to influence" his decisions.
Attorney General Pryor is a Catholic. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California also
opposed Pryor because of his "deeply held religious beliefs."
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes once said, "We live under
a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." In plain
English, that means we don’t live under a Constitution but under judges, some
of which have total disregard for the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Now, add to that the belief by Senate liberals that a devout Christian is
automatically unfit and disqualified as a candidate for a federal judgeship.
The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, People For The American Way, Americans United
For Separation of Church and State and their allies in the Senate are ready
to block--by filibuster--every judicial nominee who doesn’t support their
liberal agenda. People for the American Way alone has already raised $2,000,000
and has a "war room" in Washington staffed by 50 people.
A vote to end their filibustering will soon be taken. The vote will be to
abide by the Constitution and require a simple majority of votes cast, or--
as the liberals want-- to require 60 votes to end their filibuster. This will
be the most important vote taken in this session of Congress.
Don’t let a minority of 40 Senators and their liberal, activist cohorts on the
bench set the precedent that a devout Christian is unfit and automatically
disqualified as a federal judge.
Liberals hate Christians
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 03:55 pm |
|
| He was not disqualified on the basis of religon but, rather because, in his particular case, his deeply held religous beliefs might in his ability to do his job. His loyalty and his fealty, in that job has to be to the Constitution and the Law first and foremost. If he can not do that or, if he interprets the law through the veil of religon - then there is an inherent conflict of interest. This would certainly apply to anyone in that position. Would you be comfortable having a fundamentalist Muslim who firmly believed in Sharia in that position? Believe it or not, there are many judges with deeply held religous beliefs, but they do not allow it to interfere in their legal decisions which must be based on secular law, not religous law (for example, the decisions made in Shiavo's case). Apparently, the senate felt that Schumer could not be impartial.
|
Megatron
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 03:59 pm |
|
I thought J Holmes was a porn star?!?!?!
LOL
|
Esau hated Jacob
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 03:59 pm |
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: He was not disqualified on the basis of religon but, rather because, in his particular case, his deeply held religous beliefs might in his ability to do his job. His loyalty and his fealty, in that job has to be to the Constitution and the Law first and foremost. If he can not do that or, if he interprets the law through the veil of religon - then there is an inherent conflict of interest. This would certainly apply to anyone in that position. Would you be comfortable having a fundamentalist Muslim who firmly believed in Sharia in that position? Believe it or not, there are many judges with deeply held religous beliefs, but they do not allow it to interfere in their legal decisions which must be based on secular law, not religous law (for example, the decisions made in Shiavo's case). Apparently, the senate felt that Schumer could not be impartial.
Isn't Liberalism a "deeply held belief" and therefore interferes with liberal judges ability to do their job impartially?
Very telling
Keep liberals out of the courts and out of politics.
|
Moonriza
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 22nd, 2004 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2135 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 04:22 pm |
|
democrats have passed 168 bush appointed judges while only blocking 4.. how do you feel about that?
To be a good quality judge you have to have impartiality
Something this judge nominee was not.
therefore he would have made a bad judge and the dicision was acceptable
|
Esau hated Jacob
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 04:23 pm |
|
Moonriza wrote: democrats have passed 168 bush appointed judges while only blocking 4.. how do you feel about that?
To be a good quality judge you have to have impartiality
Something this judge nominee was not.
therefore he would have made a bad judge and the dicision was acceptable
So you discriminate based on Religion.
Very telling and very un-American.
Liberals are disgusting
|
SeanCorey
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4260 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 04:24 pm |
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:
On May 1, in a Senate Judiciary Committee session, Senator Charles Schumer of
New York said that J. Leon Holmes was disqualified as a candidate for a federal
judge appointment because of his "deeply held conservative religious views."
Holmes is a Catholic.
On June 11, 2004, speaking of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, a nominee for the
appellate court, Schumer said Pryor’s beliefs "are so well known, so deeply held
that it’s hard to believe that they’re not going to influence" his decisions.
Attorney General Pryor is a Catholic. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California also
opposed Pryor because of his "deeply held religious beliefs."
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes once said, "We live under
a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." In plain
English, that means we don’t live under a Constitution but under judges, some
of which have total disregard for the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Now, add to that the belief by Senate liberals that a devout Christian is
automatically unfit and disqualified as a candidate for a federal judgeship.
The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, People For The American Way, Americans United
For Separation of Church and State and their allies in the Senate are ready
to block--by filibuster--every judicial nominee who doesn’t support their
liberal agenda. People for the American Way alone has already raised $2,000,000
and has a "war room" in Washington staffed by 50 people.
A vote to end their filibustering will soon be taken. The vote will be to
abide by the Constitution and require a simple majority of votes cast, or--
as the liberals want-- to require 60 votes to end their filibuster. This will
be the most important vote taken in this session of Congress.
Don’t let a minority of 40 Senators and their liberal, activist cohorts on the
bench set the precedent that a devout Christian is unfit and automatically
disqualified as a federal judge.
Liberals hate Christians
Ever been in a Catholic church?...I have..they talk funny!
Sean
|
Esau hated Jacob
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 04:27 pm |
|
I thought liberals believed in equal rights and free speech?
I guess their uncontrollable hatred for Jesus Christ and His followers is just too great and turns them into utter hypocrites.
Freedom of religion, not a liberal ideal.
Vote Republican, stay free.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 04:33 pm |
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:
Moonriza wrote: democrats have passed 168 bush appointed judges while only blocking 4.. how do you feel about that?
To be a good quality judge you have to have impartiality
Something this judge nominee was not.
therefore he would have made a bad judge and the dicision was acceptable
So you discriminate based on Religion.
Very telling and very un-American.
Liberals are disgusting
Where did Moonriza say that?
|
SeanCorey
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4260 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 04:35 pm |
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:
I thought liberals believed in equal rights and free speech?
I guess their uncontrollable hatred for Jesus Christ and His followers is just too great and turns them into utter hypocrites.
Freedom of religion, not a liberal ideal.
Vote Republican, stay free.
I don't hate Jesus..I Love Jesus.
I hate what so-called Christains have done with him...
You guys are a little heavy on the spikes through the hands and feet thing. Rather grotesque..quite telling
First step confessional....tell some pervert all your dirt so he can wack off in the next cubicle.
Second Step go on Jerry Springer and tell the whole world what a screwed up person you are...
Ha! Ha!
|
Esau hated Jacob
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 04:41 pm |
|
Liberals discriminate based on religion.
Stay free.
Vote liberals out of office and keep them off the bench.
|
Megatron
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 04:56 pm |
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: He was not disqualified on the basis of religon but, rather because, in his particular case, his deeply held religous beliefs might in his ability to do his job. His loyalty and his fealty, in that job has to be to the Constitution and the Law first and foremost. If he can not do that or, if he interprets the law through the veil of religon - then there is an inherent conflict of interest. This would certainly apply to anyone in that position. Would you be comfortable having a fundamentalist Muslim who firmly believed in Sharia in that position? Believe it or not, there are many judges with deeply held religous beliefs, but they do not allow it to interfere in their legal decisions which must be based on secular law, not religous law (for example, the decisions made in Shiavo's case). Apparently, the senate felt that Schumer could not be impartial.
The senate? No, you mean the Democratic leadership who are not allowing him to be brought up to a vote.
It is funny. When a judge decides that the word marriage can be between a man and a man and starts issuing marriage licences, you applaud him for standing up for his convictions even though he is giving a word a new definition that it has never had before.
If a judges convictions are based on his religious beliefs, then he is not capable of sticking to the law. Hmm....
|
NClib
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 04:57 pm |
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: Liberals discriminate based on religion.
Stay free.
Vote liberals out of office and keep them off the bench.
It seems you were bashing Catholics the other day.
|
Esau hated Jacob
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 05:05 pm |
|
NClib wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote: Liberals discriminate based on religion.
Stay free.
Vote liberals out of office and keep them off the bench.
It seems you were bashing Catholics the other day.
Saying they are not a Bible based religion is not bashing but rather the truth.
|
NClib
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 05:07 pm |
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: NClib wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote: Liberals discriminate based on religion.
Stay free.
Vote liberals out of office and keep them off the bench.
It seems you were bashing Catholics the other day.
Saying they are not a Bible based religion is not bashing but rather the truth.
If you read the article, it doesn't say it was ebcause he was Catholic.
I guess when you just 'imply' something, it's not bashing. Typical conservative vantage point.
|
Esau hated Jacob
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 05:09 pm |
|
NClib wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote: NClib wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote: Liberals discriminate based on religion.
Stay free.
Vote liberals out of office and keep them off the bench.
It seems you were bashing Catholics the other day.
Saying they are not a Bible based religion is not bashing but rather the truth.
If you read the article, it doesn't say it was ebcause he was Catholic.
I guess when you just 'imply' something, it's not bashing. Typical conservative vantage point.
He can not rule impartially because of " his deep beliefs" ......which of course is Catholicism
Sounds very discriminatory.
Liberals hate Christians
|
xpatriated_texan
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 05:11 pm |
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:
On May 1, in a Senate Judiciary Committee session, Senator Charles Schumer of
New York said that J. Leon Holmes was disqualified as a candidate for a federal
judge appointment because of his "deeply held conservative religious views."
Holmes is a Catholic.
On June 11, 2004, speaking of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, a nominee for the
appellate court, Schumer said Pryor’s beliefs "are so well known, so deeply held
that it’s hard to believe that they’re not going to influence" his decisions.
Attorney General Pryor is a Catholic. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California also
opposed Pryor because of his "deeply held religious beliefs."
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes once said, "We live under
a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." In plain
English, that means we don’t live under a Constitution but under judges, some
of which have total disregard for the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Now, add to that the belief by Senate liberals that a devout Christian is
automatically unfit and disqualified as a candidate for a federal judgeship.
The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, People For The American Way, Americans United
For Separation of Church and State and their allies in the Senate are ready
to block--by filibuster--every judicial nominee who doesn’t support their
liberal agenda. People for the American Way alone has already raised $2,000,000
and has a "war room" in Washington staffed by 50 people.
A vote to end their filibustering will soon be taken. The vote will be to
abide by the Constitution and require a simple majority of votes cast, or--
as the liberals want-- to require 60 votes to end their filibuster. This will
be the most important vote taken in this session of Congress.
Don’t let a minority of 40 Senators and their liberal, activist cohorts on the
bench set the precedent that a devout Christian is unfit and automatically
disqualified as a federal judge.
Liberals hate Christians
Like so much of the Conservative drivel that rattles around here, you are delighting in telling only half of the story.
First, Holmes was confirmed as a federal judge on July 6, 2004. The vote was 51 to 46. Six Democrats voted for the confirmation, which offset five Republicans who voted against it.
The majority of the debate on Holmes centered on his comment concerning abortion and rape. He wrote, "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." In fact, somewhere between 22,000 and 30,000 women every year get impregnated by their rapist. Holmes issued a public apology for his comment during the confirmation process.
Another sticking point is a published comment Holmes made that stated a "wife is to subordinate herself to her husband." This one was in a religious publication and shouldn't have meant anything to his confirmation. If that is what he and his wife want to think, that's fine.
There is also an issue of conflicting interests in any abortion issue - as Holmes is the former President of the Arkansas Right to Life Coalition. Holmes has publically compared abortion to the Holocaust and has made derogatory comments towards homosexuals - saying they should be put in mental institutions.
When Chuck Schumer said that Holmes "deeply held" religious views disqualified him, he did so because Holmes has stated that his duty to God stands before his duty to uphold the Constitution.
Bill Pryor's nomination is opposed for legitimate reasons -
he sought to have executions moved up prior to election day so he could have a better execution rate
he opposes the Voting Rights Act
he defended cruel and unusual punishment - such as handcuffing prisoners in the sun without access to water - that led to the deaths of more than one prisoner
he wrote the only brief that opposed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and again in 2000
Pryor has been attacked by other catholics for not consistently applying the catholic teachings of right-to-life in cases dealing with the death penalty. If his religious views guide him, they only do so sometimes - when the case deals with abortion or gay rights. While that should not automatically exclude him, it does open a legitimate line of questioning as to how he arrives at these decisions.
XT
|
Esau hated Jacob
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 05:16 pm |
|
xpatriated_texan wrote:
Like so much of the Conservative drivel that rattles around here, you are delighting in telling only half of the story.
First, Holmes was confirmed as a federal judge on July 6, 2004. The vote was 51 to 46. Six Democrats voted for the confirmation, which offset five Republicans who voted against it.
The majority of the debate on Holmes centered on his comment concerning abortion and rape. He wrote, "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." In fact, somewhere between 22,000 and 30,000 women every year get impregnated by their rapist. Holmes issued a public apology for his comment during the confirmation process.
Another sticking point is a published comment Holmes made that stated a "wife is to subordinate herself to her husband." This one was in a religious publication and shouldn't have meant anything to his confirmation. If that is what he and his wife want to think, that's fine.
There is also an issue of conflicting interests in any abortion issue - as Holmes is the former President of the Arkansas Right to Life Coalition. Holmes has publically compared abortion to the Holocaust and has made derogatory comments towards homosexuals - saying they should be put in mental institutions.
When Chuck Schumer said that Holmes "deeply held" religious views disqualified him, he did so because Holmes has stated that his duty to God stands before his duty to uphold the Constitution.
Bill Pryor's nomination is opposed for legitimate reasons -
he sought to have executions moved up prior to election day so he could have a better execution rate
he opposes the Voting Rights Act
he defended cruel and unusual punishment - such as handcuffing prisoners in the sun without access to water - that led to the deaths of more than one prisoner
he wrote the only brief that opposed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and again in 2000
Pryor has been attacked by other catholics for not consistently applying the catholic teachings of right-to-life in cases dealing with the death penalty. If his religious views guide him, they only do so sometimes - when the case deals with abortion or gay rights. While that should not automatically exclude him, it does open a legitimate line of questioning as to how he arrives at these decisions.
XT
So you can put Foreign laws infront of the American constitution ( Sandra Day O'Conner ) but not God.
Liberals are Hypocrites
|
Esau hated Jacob
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 05:20 pm |
|
By saying that "God can not come before the constitution" Liberals have just disqualified all Christians from the bench due to the fact that Christian teaching clearly states that " God must come first in all things".
Liberals discriminate against Christians.
|
Aussiedawgs
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14th, 2005 05:32 pm |
|
Megatron wrote:
The senate? No, you mean the Democratic leadership who are not allowing him to be brought up to a vote.
It is funny. When a judge decides that the word marriage can be between a man and a man and starts issuing marriage licences, you applaud him for standing up for his convictions even though he is giving a word a new definition that it has never had before.
I stand corrected - either way, a portion of the Senate - significant enough, felt his loyalty lay less with the law and more with his religon. Pretty much what was done by the Republicans over Clinton's nominee only now the Republicans are screaming "obstructionism". If they can't take it, then they shouldn't have started dishing it out in Clinton's term.
Personally - I don't feel particularly strongly about it from either the liberal or conservative points of view, because I feel that this process might possibly force more moderate (less ideological) nominees to be chosen and that is probably what is best for our country.
If a judges convictions are based on his religious beliefs, then he is not capable of sticking to the law. Hmm....
If a judges convictions are based on his religous beliefs (or, for that matter cultural beliefs) that go over and above the law, then yes - I do not feel he can reliably follow the letter of the law impartially. That does not mean a devoutly religous person can not be a good judge - there are many examples where that is possible, But - it depends on where his loyalties lie strongest - towards religous law or towards secular law. Would you be comfortable with muslim judge who was devoutly and openly fundamentalist, in such a position - wouldn't you want to examine his record, his decisions, and question him on whether his beliefs might interfere with his ability to administer the law impartially? I would....I would seriously question since our constitution and laws are based on a seperation of government and religon from each other.
Last edited on Thu Apr 14th, 2005 05:32 pm by Aussiedawgs
|
Current time is 06:52 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
