Schumer - Anti-Constitution?

Open for Debate

Published on July 28, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

I heard a radio host - local, decrying that what Chuck Schumer is doing is clearly against the constitution. Here is the case.

The founders in erecting a wall between religion and the state (no establishment of religion, not a ban on religion - so dont argue what is not in the constitution), did not want anyone, based upon their religion, to be denied a job, life, liberty or whatever based upon their religious beleifs. At the time, this was meant to protect the Catholics as they were (and are) a minority.

Chuck Schumer, by virtue of John Roberts Catholicism, is asking him to renounce said beliefs in order to be confirmed. John Roberts is not like kerry and Kennedy (a Chino as you will). He is a practicing and religous Catholic. But he is also a Judge who has taken an oath to uphold the law as it is written, even when it conflicts with his personal beliefs. That is all we can really ask of a Jurist. We cannot change their beliefs and I hope we never do. But as long as they promise to uphold the law, regardless of their beliefs as JFK did, we should not demand more.

yet what Chuck Schumer is demanding is that John Roberts denounce his beleifs in order to get appointed. And that is clearly against the Constitution. I dont want this to be a case before the Supreme court as it would take too long, and I sincerely doubt even the most liberal members of the court (Buzzy, a jew, and Breyer an idiot) would vote for Schumer. So why is he trying this?

My only answer is because he can. he knows it will not go to the SCOTUS. So that emboldens him. And it is sad in a way. For a member of a very persecuted religion to now use a religious test for a job is not only sad, it is a sell out. I guess Schumer is a Geno (spelled JINO). He is not a mensch, he is a pathetic little man with no moral compasss other than a finger in the wind. And he is antithetical to America and the US Constitution.

Like Boxer on the left coast, Schumer is the Scarecrow. no brain, just a sheet (as in Sheets byrd) to read from. Sad ending for what could have been a model for others to follow. Alas some will. There are many brain dead people around due to circumventing Darwin and the nanny laws.

Comments

Dr Guy

on Jul 28, 2005

Sad that half the democrats have set the conditions for a vote. Before a word is spoken. Good thing they are in the minority, or I would be out of a job based upon my beliefs.

bakerstreet

on Jul 28, 2005

Honestly, I think it is worse than that. It isn't just having to sublimate your religious beliefs. That would be injustice, but one confined to yourself and God. What's really being done here is a list of laws are being handed to the nominee, and they are asked which ones they consider to be challengeable.

If you think about it, that is far more dangerous, over and above discrimination. That is a legislator using his position to ensure that the laws he passes won't be subject to the checks and balances provided by the Constitution.

To do this with religion is heinous, yes, but take it farther. They also asked questions about campaign finance reform. They asked about cases involving terrorism. These aren't issues just between the nominee and God, these are blatant attempts to expand Congressional power into the Supreme Court by making their laws untouchable.

Abortion is bad, but it still relies on a person to make a bad choice. If the Congress is allowed to rule the nation via the Supreme Court, people can be robbed of making ANY choices themselves.

Dr Guy

on Jul 28, 2005

If you think about it, that is far more dangerous, over and above discrimination. That is a legislator using his position to ensure that the laws he passes won't be subject to the checks and balances provided by the Constitution.

I agree with the whole comment, but I wanted to focus on the religious and constitutional issue. I want a liberal, and liberal to defend religious descrimination. Any way they can. This is just a subset of the whole debate, but I think a very telling one. It will separate he wheat from the chaff and reveal the truth of the Grimas.

bakerstreet

on Jul 28, 2005

Good luck. I wrote about three articles on this a year ago, and I've written two or three since, and not once have they really addressed it. Stutefish has probably been the loudest opposition, and he even admits it is a wrong, he just accepts it as an enevitable part of the process.

If I had to speak for Liberals, I think they'd say that being anti-abortion is overtly threatening people's rights, so it is fair game. Granted, when Muslim leaders scream Death to America over and over it is the worst sin to call them on it, but we aren't even allowed to question Roe v. Wade or we make ourselves ineligable for the Supreme Court.

Funny that people can condone terrorist thought in the name of freedom of religion, but they can discriminate against people on a religious basis, (a violation of a REAL right), in the name of (imaginary) reproductive rights.

Dr Guy

on Jul 28, 2005

yea, and for the most part, he is a Libertarian which is closer to conservatives. I do not hold out much hope, but intend to shove it in their face all fall long!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!