News Policy
 |
||
Forums > NEWS > UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. events > J. Leon Holmes was disqualified as a candidate for a federal judge appointment |
||
| Moderated by: VT-R, TD, Paula Ticks, mb, Lynne, kC, Jeƒƒro | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Esau hated Jacob Member 
|
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 
|
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 
|
I thought J Holmes was a porn star?!?!?! LOL |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
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
|
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
|
Moonriza wrote: democrats have passed 168 bush appointed judges while only blocking 4.. how do you feel about that? So you discriminate based on Religion. Very telling and very un-American. Liberals are disgusting |
|||||||||
|
SeanCorey Member 
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:
Ever been in a Catholic church?...I have..they talk funny! Sean |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
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
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:Moonriza wrote:democrats have passed 168 bush appointed judges while only blocking 4.. how do you feel about that? Where did Moonriza say that? |
|||||||||
|
SeanCorey Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:I thought liberals believed in equal rights and free speech? 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
|
Liberals discriminate based on religion. Stay free. Vote liberals out of office and keep them off the bench. |
|||||||||
|
Megatron Member
|
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 
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: Liberals discriminate based on religion. It seems you were bashing Catholics the other day. |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
NClib wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote:Liberals discriminate based on religion. Saying they are not a Bible based religion is not bashing but rather the truth. |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: NClib wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote:Liberals discriminate based on religion. 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
|
NClib wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote:NClib wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote:Liberals discriminate based on religion. He can not rule impartially because of " his deep beliefs" ......which of course is Catholicism Sounds very discriminatory. Liberals hate Christians |
|||||||||
|
xpatriated_texan Member 
|
Esau hated Jacob 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 |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
xpatriated_texan wrote:
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
|
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
|
Megatron wrote:
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 |
|||||||||
|
Aussiedawgs Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: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". Most Christians must not realize this...or, perhaps, they are able to succeed at many diverse occupations - such as law, because they do not subscribe to your very narrowly interpreted view of Christianity or they are able to seperate their secular duties from their religous ones. If I held strong beliefs contrary to the expectations of my job performance, I would resign or not apply for that job. That is not discrimination. If I were a strong Pro-Lifer, I would not apply for a job as an abortionist or as an executioner. Simple really. |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote: So in other words, you agree with discriminating against Christians. |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: Aussiedawgs wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote: The thing I would agree on is your lack of reading comprehension skills. |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
The "equal rights" liberals sure are quiet. Very telling. Liberals hate Christians. |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: The "equal rights" liberals sure are quiet. Probably because talking to you is like talking to Rodack. |
|||||||||
|
Aussiedawgs Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:Aussiedawgs wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote: Can you show me where I said that? The answer is no. I believe in hiring the people best qualified to do the job. If a person's religous beliefs prevents them from doing the job, I would not hire them. It is not discriminations if they can not perform the job they were hired for - or, do you believe in hiring unqualified people? Sounds kind of strange to me.... |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
Didn't Hitler and the Nazis discriminate against a certain religion only to later slaughter 6 million of them? Liberals are disgusting. |
|||||||||
|
Megatron Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: 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. Fair enough. I do understand your concerns. And yes, this judge is going to a position of great power. I'll be honest with you. I believe all these judges truly deserve to be voted on yay or nay. I do understand your point and I know why things are the way they are. I also see the danger of ending filibustering on judicial appointment voting as well. I just see so many whack job radical left judges out there, I really want these guys on the bench to balance things out. I do not agree in changing tradition (being a conservative I tend to like keeping things the way they are unless change is an absolute necessity) but I understand how the Senate Republicans can want to. Who knows. It's politics. Seriously, if you don't like what us conservatives are doing, get your party to change enough of it's platform to allow some god fearing former military types to vote democrat with good conscience. |
|||||||||
|
Megatron Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Can you show me where I said that? The answer is no. I believe in hiring the people best qualified to do the job. If a person's religous beliefs prevents them from doing the job, I would not hire them. It is not discriminations if they can not perform the job they were hired for - or, do you believe in hiring unqualified people? Sounds kind of strange to me.... LOL Now that statement opens a whole other can of worms. But I'm tired today and don't feel like debating. |
|||||||||
|
Aussiedawgs Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:Didn't Hitler and the Nazis discriminate against a certain religion only to later slaughter 6 million of them? And what exactly does Hitler and the Nazi's have to do with selecting a U.S. judge and determining his qualifications for the job? Hmmm....I wonder if you'd hire a Mullah to teach your church's Sunday School classes....or would you "discrimminate"? |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote: Disqualified because of the man's religious beliefs. I wonder if Hitler would have appointed a Jew? Probably not but very telling about the new National Socialist Party of America.....I mean American liberalism. |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: Aussiedawgs wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote: Oh that's right...you're one of those phoney Christians. |
|||||||||
|
Aussiedawgs Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:Aussiedawgs wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote: hmm...no where in the article did it state he was disqualified on the basis of his religous beliefs...it appears in XT's more complete rendition of the facts that there was more to it then you propose. Even more interesting how you avoid answering the questions... |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote: I thought it was a reading comprehension problem, but then I thought, 'consider the source'. Conservatives are evil (and poor readers). |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote: We already went through that.....disqualified for putting God before the constitution which is one of the bases of Christianity, God goes before everything. Therefore disqualifing a candidate because of his religious beliefs ( all Christians ). Why not just ban the Bible and get it over with? Make us wear stars on our clothes? Put us in jail for believing that Homosexuality is a sin? Put us on trains? Very telling indeed. |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: Aussiedawgs wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote: Yeah...I think running you out of town on a rail might be the best way to go. What say you? |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
You'd miss me |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: You'd miss me We all would...  |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
Liberals are Jesusphobes. Thier hatred for the Lord and His followers is quite telling |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: Liberals are Jesusphobes. Anti-Semite! |
|||||||||
|
Aussiedawgs Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:
No, I'm afraid we didn't go "throught that". Look back and re-read. Would you hire a Mullah to teach your Sunday School classes? |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
Aussiedawgs wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote: Terrible analogy that has zero relevance to the thread. Now back to your hatred for Christians and your Nazi ideology of discriminating against a certain religion. I thought Liberals wanted equality? Guess not. Lousy Christ-ophobes. Stay alive, vote liberals out of office |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: Aussiedawgs wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote: Why are you putting so many blank lines in your posts? |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
NClib wrote: Esau hated Jacob wrote:Aussiedawgs wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote: what do you mean? |
|||||||||
|
NClib Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: NClib wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote:Aussiedawgs wrote:Esau hated Jacob wrote: are you talking to me? |
|||||||||
|
Aussiedawgs Member
|
Esau hated Jacob
This thread is about job qualifications and religous discrimination is it not? Then my analogy has absolute relevance to this thread. Quit going off on unrelated tangents and name calling and answer the question...unless of course you can't. Would you hire a Mullah to teach your Sunday School classes? Last edited on Thu Apr 14th, 2005 08:50 pm by Aussiedawgs |
|||||||||
|
xpatriated_texan Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote: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". Yeah, and anti-pedophilia laws discriminate against people who like to screw kids. Look if you want to be a judge, you aren't being asked to enforce the Bible. You are being asked to uphold the Constitution. If you can't understand that, then you have no business trying to take the job. |
|||||||||
|
xpatriated_texan Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:
Why not pull your head out of your butt and blink into the sunlight of reality? Not all Christians are barred - in fact, if you did a survey on federal judges I'm willing to bet you'd come up with at least 95% of them are Christian. However, Christians who are so blinded by Heaven that they have forgotten they live on earth are, and should be, barred from the bench. The same is true for anyone whose "deep seated beliefs" include satanism, islam, budhism, sihkism, or atheism. I'm a Christian myself, and I'm pretty sure I could match you verse for verse on any topic you want to discuss from a Biblical perspective. The difference is that my Bible teaches me to love the sinner and hate the sin and your Bible appears to teach you to hate everyone who won't jump into lockstep with your political agenda. The fact is that Christians are no where near persecuted in this country. Only an imbecile would say that they are. When I look out the window of my living room, I can see two churches that are filled to overflowing every Sunday. If I drive a three block circle around my house, I can find seventeen churches that hold services in English, Spanish, Korean, Tagolog, and Arabic. It's a funny way to persecute these people. It is insulting to insinuate that we face the same challenges that people who are truly persecuted - such as Chinese congregations that meet in basements or McDonald's bathrooms to avoid being jailed for their beliefs. Whatever your beliefs are, they are simply not based in reality. That in itself should disqualify you, or anyone who spouts the same drivel as you, from any judiciary position. XT |
|||||||||
|
Esau hated Jacob Member
|
Liberals do not believe in freedom of religion. Wait, didn't people originally come to America for religious freedom? Very telling. Stay free, vote liberals out of office. ![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif) |
|||||||||
|
Aussiedawgs Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:Liberals do not believe in freedom of religion. So, Esau....Would you hire a Mullah to teach your Sunday School classes? Do I take your statement endorsing religous freedom to mean that you strong believer in religous freedom for all and that your answer would be: "Yes, I would enthusiastically hire a Mullah becuase, after all he is qualified and, after all, I don't believe in discrimminating on the basis of religon" ????? ![[bounce]](/forums/themes/default/1syellow1.gif) |
|||||||||
|
xpatriated_texan Member
|
Esau hated Jacob wrote:Liberals do not believe in freedom of religion. Yes, they came here to not have religion rammed down their throat - like you're trying to do. XT |
|||||||||