Even Democrats seem to agree that asking judge Amy Coney Barrett about her religious beliefs would be going to far, even though some of those beliefs are pretty strange.
Extremism Is OK As Long As It’s Christian
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
9 Comments. Leave new
Just think, in two more weeks, our long national nightmare will just be beginning. Barrett’s confirmation will be like a gentle kiss.
Let’s all take a moment, seriously, to contemplate what it will be like in the Media Bubble World if Trump wins (by whatever means).
I’d put them all on suicide watch.
The one that got to me was not about religion. It was when Barrett was asked what she thought of Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power (a refusal which he has now backed down from). Barrett refused to comment on Trump’s refusal. In other words, she is being considered for a position in charge of the law, and yet she refuses to comment on whether Trump should obey the law.
Barret sells herself as a textualist but she wasn’t asked by the Democrats how the text of the Constitution relates to Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power or his ability to delay or call off an election.
Law devolves into whatever the duopoly chooses to inflict on their subordinate true believer people.
And nowhere is the question being asked about the extradition trial of Julian Assange and the government’s ability to kill the First Amendment and those who would reveal US war crimes.
How does Might makes Right continue to be referred to as democracy?
U.S. Constitution Article VI
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.
Nevertheless, no professed atheist has ever been president.
Religions are regularly excluded, but not on a Constitutional basis.
Joe Lieberman has his own interpretation of the Constitution.
He claimed we have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45c/001.html
Religion will always buzz around one’s head like an annoying gnat, trying to get into your private business and cash.
In an situation where the vice president and the secretary of state believe in the Rapture (and the latter is doing his best to bring about Armageddon), weird religious beliefs would seem not be a bug, but a feature….
Henri
Why bother with “Christian Crazed-Fundamentalist Fragility” when it is possible to use the Senatorial hold to block any vote on the SCOTUS nominee until after the general election?
Since the nominee for previous SCOTUS vacancy was not even considered because the general election was within one YEAR, then this vacancy, within 6 weeks of a general election, should likewise not be considered.
This strategy does not require the scurrilousness of the senate leader but, rather, only a minimal amount of political courage and a willingness to publicly express disdain for total hypocrisy.
I must assume, until shown otherwise, that the combined Dem caucus comes up way short on those requirements.
What about kosher bacon?