|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
 Posted - 07/12/2002 : 18:05:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That is the current litmus test already imposed on federal judges by the Democrat-controlled Senate, whose leader Tom Daschle has been blocking federal nominations that do not pass his personal litmus test.
Is one litmus test more acceptable than another?
-Ogami
Well the one where the currently democratic controlled congress approves Judges is better, since that is how the Constitution says it is supposed to be done. As opposed to George Bush's "common sense judges that know our rights come from god".
Entropy just isn't what it used to be. |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 18:24:51 [Permalink]
|
Democrats or Republicans or members of any other party can have any litmus test they wish so long as it is constitutional.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 18:41:21 [Permalink]
|
Ah, I went and found Bush's quote that this thread cites in the Announcements section. And I see this "question" of a religious litmus test is also an official poll of the Skeptic Friends Network.
As I detailed in the Announcement thread, I believe the phrasing of the poll question is flawed and the premise is flawed. Bush didn't attempt to push his personal religious beliefs on anyone, and his statement does not change in the slightest the intent of our founding fathers. See my post on "Bush Sets Religious Litmus Test for Judges" in Annoucements.
Yeesh, I'd have thought skeptics would have thought this through more. Meaning no offense.
-Ogami
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 18:47:13 [Permalink]
|
For a President to even question it betrays him or her as a) ignorant or b) having utter disregard for the law. You take your pick.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 20:25:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As I detailed in the Announcement thread, I believe the phrasing of the poll question is flawed and the premise is flawed. Bush didn't attempt to push his personal religious beliefs on anyone,
Pardon? Bush's statement that appointed judges need to believe that our rights come from God is somehow not a statement of personal belief?
quote:
and his statement does not change in the slightest the intent of our founding fathers.
Maybe you could dig up those documents and post some excerpts. You know, the ones that say, "The intent of the founding fathers" at the top.
quote:
Yeesh, I'd have thought skeptics would have thought this through more. Meaning no offense.
Too late, of course.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 23:32:31 [Permalink]
|
Maybe you could dig up those documents and post some excerpts. You know, the ones that say, "The intent of the founding fathers" at the top.
Request granted! (See thread in Announcements) But I guess it's a document that has fallen out of favor with some.
-Ogami
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2002 : 10:08:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Maybe you could dig up those documents and post some excerpts. You know, the ones that say, "The intent of the founding fathers" at the top.
Request granted! (See thread in Announcements) But I guess it's a document that has fallen out of favor with some.
Please. See my response in Announcements. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
theweirdirishman
New Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2002 : 15:07:02 [Permalink]
|
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." -George Carlin
That basically sums up my opinion on a religious test.
|
|
|
|
InGen Brand Raptor
New Member
Bangladesh
1 Post |
Posted - 08/05/2002 : 02:06:34 [Permalink]
|
| Oye vey, hello President Bush, we tried this theocracy thingiemajigger before, and we got the Inquisition. Ya think we might just stick with that constitution deal? I mean I know it's a tad old, but, hey no messing with a classic. Pity, somehow Canada just keeps looking better and better these days. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2004 : 11:48:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
What do you think should be the primary consideration in the appointment of federal judges?
I voted both equally, but the religous consideration I see as important is that the Judge be able to SEPERATE his personal religous beliefs from his rulings. Thats all. I'd hate to see a religous nut like GW Bush appointed to the supreme court. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2004 : 05:08:56 [Permalink]
|
| A judges religious beliefs shouldn't be considered at all. A judge should be considered based on his knowledge of the law, and has shown that they will apply the law equally. Whether they believe God or not is irrelevant. If you base your descision on weather someone beleives in God or not, then the possibility of discrimination based on religious beliefs can come into play. |
|
|
|
blingcam
New Member
1 Post |
Posted - 10/17/2004 : 23:45:49 [Permalink]
|
| Well, all I know is that even our American Currency states the words "In God We Trust", with that said maybe our judging forums, and judges need to have that kind of A moral standard. |
| Edited by - blingcam on 10/18/2004 00:03:12 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2004 : 00:56:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by blingcam
Well, all I know is that even our American Currency states the words "In God We Trust", with that said maybe our judging forums, and judges need to have that kind of A moral standard.
If religion really represented morality, maybe. But it doesn't. For example, George Bush, a supposedly religious person, thinks nothing of lying about having no litmus test for a Supreme Court appointment.
Even the Declaration of Independence started out saying all men were created equal but they didn't mean it to apply to all men until the 13th-15th amendments were added to the Constitution in the late 1800s.
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Given the context of slave ownership practiced by the writers, I don't see any religious morality there, do you?
The words on the money are just words. They don't have any Constitutional relevance per se. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2004 : 07:47:01 [Permalink]
|
| Those rediculous words wern't added to our curency and pledge until the 1950's, by the McCarthy freaks. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
