Bush violates Civil Rights Act

[Mr. P]

Guys ya saved me the effort..Thanks.

Somehow, I don't think it will be enough though.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And why not? Care to point out where in the constitution it says religiosity cannot be a criteria to be considered?

OK, no problem.

From Article VI Section 3

"... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

There you go.


As you are probably aware, there is more law than the Constitution. When Bush swears to uphold Constitution he also swears to uphold the laws of this land - one being the Civil Rights Act - which SPECIFICALLY prohibits using religion or lack of religion as a basis for hiring or not hiring someone.

 

[no1tovote4]

OK, no problem.

From Article VI Section 3

"... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

There you go.


As you are probably aware, there is more law than the Constitution. When Bush swears to uphold Constitution he also swears to uphold the laws of this land - one being the Civil Rights Act - which SPECIFICALLY prohibits using religion or lack of religion as a basis for hiring or not hiring someone.

Once again, saying, "A large part of her is her religion." is not the same thing as saying "If she were not Christian I would not have hired her." There is no evidence that Bush used this as a qualification for the job. He was simply describing her. In context Bush says, "People want to know all about her." then begins describing her by stating her religion is important to her. He then goes on to say that she is immenently qualified for the job at hand and never mentions religion in the qualifications he lists that he used to select her for the job.

Therefore there is no violation except in wishful thinking.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What I know is you must PROVE what he said was what you think he said.
.

Are you suggesting the transcript does not faithfully reproduce the words that came out of his mouth?


Is Bill Clinton not guilty of perjury - simply because the House prosecutors failed to prove that he was to the satisfaction of the Senate?

Did OJ most certainly not kill Nicole because a jury rendered a "not guilty" verdict?


I'm not suggesting Bush would lose this case in court - in face, it would never go to court. The President is exempt from subpoena - if he chooses - while in office. All I'm suggesting is that by using religion as a criteria for his selection, he is violating the Civil Rights Act. Are you saying that using religion as a selection criteria does NOT violate the Civil Rights Act? If that's what you're saying - I suggest you read the act! Are you suggesting Bush's statement that Mier's is religious was inserted ina list of the reasons he lists for nominating her for no good reason at all? Then I suggest you try to learn a little reading comprehension.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Bush did not state that was part of the selection criteria, he stated that her religion was part of her after he explained that people wanted to know all about her. This is simply ideologically based criticism based on an assumption that because he stated she was Christian that it was why she was selected.

PRESIDENT BUSH: People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions.

1. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion.

2. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas.

3. I remind people that Harriet Miers is one of the--has been rated consistently one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States.

4. She's eminently qualified for the job.

5. And she has got a judicial philosophy that I appreciate; otherwise I wouldn't have named her to the bench, which is--or nominated her to the bench--which is that she will not legislate from the bench, but strictly interpret the Constitution"

So Bush intended items 2-5 to be reasons why he nominated her - but NOT item 1? Please! You're kidding, right? Or are 2-5 not reasons for nominating her, either? So he says "People want to know why I nominated her" and then proceeds to NOT address the issue of why he nominated her? Is that your position?


You'd better be careful when you bend over so much for this guy - I hear he doesn't give reach arounds.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Once again, saying, "A large part of her is her religion." is not the same thing as saying "If she were not Christian I would not have hired her." There is no evidence that Bush used this as a qualification for the job. He was simply describing her. In context Bush says, "People want to know all about her." then begins describing her by stating her religion is important to her. He then goes on to say that she is immenently qualified for the job at hand and never mentions religion in the qualifications he lists that he used to select her for the job.

Therefore there is no violation except in wishful thinking.

In context Bush says "People ask me WHY I PICKED Harriet Mier"

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hiring someone is not discrimination.

 

[MtnBiker]

Hiring someone is not discrimination.

Is the President hiring her or will the Congress be hiring her?

 

[no1tovote4]

PRESIDENT BUSH: People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions.

1. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion.

Here he is describing her life, not qualifications.

Then he begins listing qualifications...

2. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas.

3. I remind people that Harriet Miers is one of the--has been rated consistently one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States.

4. She's eminently qualified for the job.

5. And she has got a judicial philosophy that I appreciate; otherwise I wouldn't have named her to the bench, which is--or nominated her to the bench--which is that she will not legislate from the bench, but strictly interpret the Constitution"

So Bush intended items 2-5 to be reasons why he nominated her - but NOT item 1? Please! You're kidding, right? Or are 2-5 not reasons for nominating her, either? So he says "People want to know why I nominated her" and then proceeds to NOT address the issue of why he nominated her? Is that your position?

Read the actual sentence, he is describing her life in that sentence, not a qualification. Words actaully do mean something.

You'd better be careful when you bend over so much for this guy - I hear he doesn't give reach arounds.

Way to elevate the conversation! I guess I shouldn't have given you rep points because of the way you actually argue points rather than attempt ad hominem attacks. Especially when I have already stated I disagree that the woman is even qualified.

This shows you are an ideological slave unwilling to think that somebody who doesn't particularly like Bush and is not a Republican might think differently than you on this particular issue.

 

[Mr. P]

Are you suggesting the transcript does not faithfully reproduce the words that came out of his mouth?


...

I haven't seen a transcipt on this yet, do you have A link?

I'll ignore the rest of your insults.

 

[ThomasPaine]

Are you suggesting the transcript does not faithfully reproduce the words that came out of his mouth?


Is Bill Clinton not guilty of perjury - simply because the House prosecutors failed to prove that he was to the satisfaction of the Senate?

Did OJ most certainly not kill Nicole because a jury rendered a "not guilty" verdict?


I'm not suggesting Bush would lose this case in court - in face, it would never go to court. The President is exempt from subpoena - if he chooses - while in office. All I'm suggesting is that by using religion as a criteria for his selection, he is violating the Civil Rights Act. Are you saying that using religion as a selection criteria does NOT violate the Civil Rights Act? If that's what you're saying - I suggest you read the act! Are you suggesting Bush's statement that Mier's is religious was inserted ina list of the reasons he lists for nominating her for no good reason at all? Then I suggest you try to learn a little reading comprehension.

Your attempt to infer such is ignorant of the facts. Besides the Civil Rights act prohibits DISCRIMINATION against a person's religion in hiring in some but not all areas of employment. I find no evidence of Bush discriminationg in this case at all. It would be another thing if he refused to nominate someone because they were a militant muslim who openly supported Al Queda but that is not the case. It has been pointed out to you additionally that he is not "Hiring" her he is appointing her subject to Senate approval. Gawd some folks who seem to have brains, when afforded the opportunity to display them, revert to stupidity instead. You're Tiger Bait!!

 

[Mr. P]

Is the President hiring her or will the Congress be hiring her?

Yes, Congress will,
another reason this so called court action is BS.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yes, Congress will,
another reason this so called court action is BS.

In fact if the Senate doesn't approve her because of her religion then they have violated the Civil Rights Act.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Hiring someone is not discrimination.

Hiring someone based in part or in whole on their race, religion, or nation of origin is.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Is the President hiring her or will the Congress be hiring her?

Both of them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Here he is describing her life, not qualifications.


"1. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."


Then he begins listing qualifications...

"2. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas."

So the "part" in 1 and the "part" in 2 are parts of two different things? HA HA HA HA! yeah right! Keep going, this is funny! Whatcha got next for me?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I haven't seen a transcipt on this yet, do you have A link?

I'll ignore the rest of your insults.

I posted a verbatim cut and past copy of the statement at the top of this thread. Are you accusing me of fabricating the statement?

 

[Mr. P]

In fact if the Senate doesn't approve her because of her religion then they have violated the Civil Rights Act.

True

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Your attempt to infer such is ignorant of the facts. Besides the Civil Rights act prohibits DISCRIMINATION against a person's religion in hiring in some but not all areas of employment.

You're suggesting that the Civil Rights Act makes an exception for Supreme Court Justices? Where does it say that?

I find no evidence of Bush discriminationg in this case at all. It would be another thing if he refused to nominate someone because they were a militant muslim who openly supported Al Queda but that is not the case.

Discrimination based on a criteria refers to both not hiring someone because they have that criteria AND hiring someone because they have that criteria.

It has been pointed out to you additionally that he is not "Hiring" her he is appointing her subject to Senate approval. Gawd some folks who seem to have brains, when afforded the opportunity to display them, revert to stupidity instead. You're Tiger Bait!!

Assuming she is approved, she's going to have a job by the end of this - who is hiring her? Is it the Senate? Is it the President? Its both of them.

Is it OK for an individual manager of a Papa Johns to hire only Christians, because its actually Papa Johns the Company doing the hiring? What about a CEO who's decision to hire a high level employee must be approved by the board of directors? He can select someone because they are white, or because they are Christian, simply because he is not the only person who has a hand in the hiring decision? No.

 

[Mr. P]

I posted a verbatim cut and past copy of the statement at the top of this thread. Are you accusing me of fabricating the statement?

Not at all, however cut an paste does not a transcipt make. Got a link to one?
Not a news report, but a transcript.