6417

Word.

6418

There’s a strawman lurking in here somewhere I’m sure.

Questioning about something that’s a part of who you are and has an impact on the job you’re interviewing for isn’t attacking.

6419

Yep, pretty much.

6420

If a Muslim said he believed that dying in the act of killing infidels would propel him to paradise and grant him fifty sex slaves, I think folks here would have no problem attacking that belief, and we would probably opine that they didn’t belong on the Court. You would be in the forefront of that group. Kooky and dangerous beliefs are kooky and dangerous.

6421

My position on this does not change based on whether or not most the folks here view a religion one way or another. It has nothing to do with whether or not she is a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, or worships a two headed moon god that thinks the sun is evil.

Topics are not off the table because it’s part of a religion. It had better be relevant to her stated views, her rulings in cases, her ability to do her job though and not just an attack on not liking her religion in general.

6422

If they were Muslim, do you think that it would be acceptable for people to grill them on their religious beliefs? I don’t think it would.

As i said, our religion is only one facet of our being. And for most of us, professionalism allows us to compartmentalize those things.

A constitutional law scholar would presumably understand that the job of a justice is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, not whether they fall within their religion’s practices.

6423

I don’t disagree.

But based upon what the FOX News fueled outrage machine has ginned up already, I don’t think there’s a way to ask those questions without having them characterized by the Right in the worst possible light. And it will fuel commercials and talking points for the next five weeks.

It’s unlikely to help much. So…why go there if you’re a Democratic senator? And I say that knowing full well that at least a couple of those who question her will go there regardless. I’m just hoping they’re in a large minority of the whole senate questioning round robin.

6424

If you’re asking me if I’d be fine with grilling people who are going to sit on an undemocratic institution like the supreme court for 40 years adversely impacting the citizens of the entire country, hum, yeah, I’m fine with that. In fact I’m fine with questioning them about anything whatsoever.

And that last sentence is so politically naive about the nature of the court I wouldn’t know where to begin.

6425

Maybe I’m not used to protestant mumbo jumbo in my totally non-catholic influenced country, but Margaret Atwood came to mind when reading that. I’m sure it’s nothing to be concerned about, it’s not like she’ll have a lot of power or anything. What could possibly go wrong?

I had to look up the name to be sure it was correct; good thing the very serious media already ran with unverified associations. Sigh.

And a job interview is used to make sure people are qualified for the job, in which a question about the basis for her decisions is germane. No one is talking about banning her because she’s religious, just making fun (and being worried) because it’s incredibly suspicious in the current circumstances.

6426

Yes, i concur.

I would suggest that it’s totally acceptable to ask her about any of her rulings, or the body of work she did in her tenure at notre dame.

If her only rationale for some decision or opinion is, “because God says so,” then that would be disqualifying, at least to me.

But someone simply believing things that i perhaps think are weird? No, I can’t find that disqualifying i don’t think, lest I start going down there road into religious bigotry.

At some point in the past, i used to make fun of mormons for having what i believed (still believe) are weird, nonsensical beliefs. But they really aren’t any worse than other mainstream religions. I think i was just being a bigot towards them, because I didn’t really have much experience with their particular brand of weirdness.

6427

Her association with Scalia is much more worry than her association with People of Praise. The People of Praise association gives a hint to her motivations, but her admiration for Scalia reveals the way she is actually going to work. Although he talked about principles, his judicial decisions mostly came down to pure partisanship. Barrett’s writings about the ACA seem to be of the same ilk.

6428

Exactly, if it doesn’t have to do with her job, her cases, her specific decision making about a specific incident related to her, not her religion, not her religious community but her as a professional or personal that might affect her professional sphere… they shouldn’t touch it. No broad attacks, no trying to make general points, just… very precise and careful.

Democrats don’t disqualify people just because there is a religious link or an unusual belief that doesn’t actually impact their work. You’d assume most answers involving her cases would lead back to law or previous cases.

6429

For me it’s simple. When she said that she wouldn’t allow her religious beliefs to guide her decisions… I believe she lied. She can believe what she wants and I’ll believe what I want.

6430

Oooo, you’re gonna get such a scolding.

6431

Bring it. And harsh words too. I have my pearls and fainting couch at the ready. :)

6432

Is there a specific reason you believe she lied, or… do you think anyone who says that has a religion / spiritual belief lies about it?

I mean I believe Trump lies about everything he says when it comes to religion, but it’s not because he says he has a religion or that it’s Christianity. There is the fact that he can’t actually say anything coherent about the Bible, his practices are completely out of whack from anything he tells the Evangelicals he believes in and well the list is… super long. What’s not on it is though is just a plain statement that is, well he says he has a religion. And because of all the shit he does, you would never really have to talk about his religion because of the actual stuff he’s done. Who needs what’s in his head when you can just look at what he says and does?

6433

I believe that every potential SC nominee has been groomed and extensively interviewed for years ahead of time, and detailed lists of expected positions and ‘suitability’ are available from the powerbroker clearinghouse of choice.

All Trump would have to say is : give me a woman, who will overturn ACA, who knows how to follow orders, and as young as possible. There are binders full.

6434

I think their religious beliefs as they pertain to the law are important. In particular, an examination of the current “Religious Freedom” laws and how they impact the Individual Liberties of others.

What does she believe about the Constitution and Freedom From Religion? Is it a Constitutional Right?

6435

Just her specific case. I admit I don’t know much about her. But a Supreme Court nomination? It’s the top of the top of her profession. And she is very conservative. For me it looks like time to bullshit. What should she say? What would you say to get the best job you could ever get? Hell, I’d lie to get there. I assume that anyone who wants that kind of power lies.

Even Biden.

6436

She joined a dissent which argued that a state can require that aborted fetuses are treated like children who have died, e.g. mandate burial or cremation for them, because we owe them dignity and respect. That fetuses are children and thus ought to have death rites and be treated with dignity and respect is surely a religious view.