Bush violates Civil Rights Act

[no1tovote4]

Just because you can't be prosecuted for something doesn't mean yuo haven't violated the law. People get away with crimes all the time - in fact the majority of workplace discrimination cannot be proven in a court of law - does this mean it doesn't happen?

BINGO! Which is why Bush wouldn't violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Plus it is likely that Conservatives WOULD actually prosecute him for such a violation of States rights and impeach.

So the list of things after the statement "People ask why I picked Harriet Miers" isn't a list of qualifications? The fact that she is one of the 50 best female lawyers in the nation isn't a qualification? His statement that she is qualified, has NOTHING to do with her qualifications? UNBELIEVEABLE.

He also states, "They want to know her and everything about her" in the same sentence. Therefore the list that followed covered some about her personally and some of her qualifications. Clearly you can comprehend that people can converse and answer two questions at once.

So the things that someone says after the statement "People ask why I picked so and so" quite logically have NOTHING to do with the reasons why that person was picked? Is that your position?

My position is that things stated after "people want to know her, people want to know everything about her" they may state things that are different from the list of things after "they want to know why I picked her" and after "they want to know her qualifications" all of those quoted statements are in the same line where he was talking about her. He was answering more than one question at a time.

Amazingly language is complex enough to handle mutliple ideas on the same subject at the same time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a PhD in English to inform you that words that talk of her life are not talking of her qualifications, but of her personally and that her personal life was part of the multiple ideas he was getting across about the subject, the nominee.

Shoot I don't even like the nominee. I cannot believe that there wasn't another Roberts out there to find. Someone clearly qualified.

 

[Mr. P]

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

Find that link yet SpinSpider?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Saying that someones religion is part of what makes them who you are is hardly a religious test. A religious test is forbiding someone to be appointed because they dont follow a certain religion.

 

[manu1959]

That he included it in a list of her qualifications.

no he didn't

 

[Avatar4321]

Please tell me you aren't serious.

Perhaps you learned in your HS Civics class that its the courts which intepret the meaning of the law, NOT the President. And considering the Consitutution specifically states no religious test will be imposed for ANY public office, its pretty easy to see which way they would rule.

It would be great if the employer himself could determine what a "bona fide" reason would be - wouldn't it! Then the act would be compeltely uneforcible and useless.

Actually all branches of government have the responsibility and right to interpret the Constitution and the law. The Executive branch has the right to interpret acts of congress in order to enforce them.

The fact is the act should be unenforceable because employeers should be allowed to hire and fire anyone according to their desires outside those in a contractual relationship.

You seem to think that the acknowledging that someone is as an adherant to a certain faith doesn't and factoring that into the decision does not equal a religious test. A religious test would be banning or prohibiting someone from office because of religious belief. In this case, a religious test would be only people of "insert faith here" can be Supreme Court justices. There is no evidence to support that the President did such a thing. The quotes you try to claim support you don't.

 

[Mr. P]

This Moron is a waste of time folks.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And that reason is perfectly legal. give up.

For those of us who can read it isn't.

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

US CONSTITUTION

 

[SpidermanTuba]

even if GW did mention her religion as part of her qualifications...it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever...as long as he did not discriminate against her for this...just a simple point of law...mind ya!

The Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from selecting their employees based on religion. Do you understand English? This means, he may not use as part of his basis for selection, her religion. Is that loud and clear?

 

[archangel]

This Moron is a waste of time folks.

he just opened a can of worms...he is arguing that GW discriminated by using the qualification of religion as being discrimination...well golly gee...GW can now argue that he was using "Affirmative Action" this one has already been addressed in the courts...and I would love to see the ACLU backstep....really fast!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

BINGO! Which is why Bush wouldn't violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Plus it is likely that Conservatives WOULD actually prosecute him for such a violation of States rights and impeach.

Dude, you have got serious mental problems if you think this House would impeach the President for a misdemeanor violation.

He also states, "They want to know her and everything about her" in the same sentence. Therefore the list that followed covered some about her personally and some of her qualifications. Clearly you can comprehend that people can converse and answer two questions at once.

How convenient that only those things listed which would be illegal reasons for qualification are the ones that aren't qualifications.




"And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion. 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 word "part" in the first sentence above and the word "part" in the second sentence above refer to two completely different things? You've got to be kidding me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Saying that someones religion is part of what makes them who you are is hardly a religious test. A religious test is forbiding someone to be appointed because they dont follow a certain religion.

A religious test is also appointing someone because they do follow a specific religion. He said people ask him why he picked Miers. He then points out she is religious.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The fact is the act should be unenforceable because employeers should be allowed to hire and fire anyone according to their desires outside those in a contractual relationship.

So the act should be unenforcible - because you disagree with it? That isn't logical. Are you a racist? Oh, wait, nevermind, I forgot that racists never realize they are racist.


There you have it folks. Avatar doesn't neccessarily believe Bush didn't violate the Civil Rights Act - he just feels it shouldn't be enforced because its his personal belief that black people should be denied employment based on their skin color alone.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

he just opened a can of worms...he is arguing that GW discriminated by using the qualification of religion as being discrimination...well golly gee...GW can now argue that he was using "Affirmative Action" this one has already been addressed in the courts...and I would love to see the ACLU backstep....really fast!

No dice. I don't agree with affirmative action. While I believe there are racial inequities that need to be addressed in society - I do not believe affirmative action is the proper way to do it. It merely fixes a symptom of the underlying problems without fixing the problems themselves

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled that it is acceptable and does not violate the law - including the Civil Rights Act.


But even if I did believe in affirmative action - how would nominating a Christian to sit on a court with nothing but Christians on it even qualify as affirmative action? Affirmative action how? The Court is full of Christians. Its not affirmative action when you make a group of people less diverse.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This Moron is a waste of time folks.

This post seems to be one whose sole aim is to insult me. This is prohibited under the rules of the board, is it not?


Oh, but wait - I forgot - in right winger world the person breaking the law is the person who gets to decide if they are really breaking it.

 

[Annie]

This post seems to be one whose sole aim is to insult me. This is prohibited under the rules of the board, is it not?


Oh, but wait - I forgot - in right winger world the person breaking the law is the person who gets to decide if they are really breaking it.

Got a complaint? pm a mod or admin.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Got a complaint? pm a mod or admin.

I prefer to attempt to settle my disputes pesron to person before running to tattle to the authorities.

 

[Annie]

I prefer to attempt to settle my disputes pesron to person before running to tattle to the authorities.

Then stop with the innuendo and do so, but not publically whining on the board.

 

[archangel]

No dice. I don't agree with affirmative action. While I believe there are racial inequities that need to be addressed in society - I do not believe affirmative action is the proper way to do it. It merely fixes a symptom of the underlying problems without fixing the problems themselves

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled that it is acceptable and does not violate the law - including the Civil Rights Act.


But even if I did believe in affirmative action - how would nominating a Christian to sit on a court with nothing but Christians on it even qualify as affirmative action? Affirmative action how? The Court is full of Christians. Its not affirmative action when you make a group of people less diverse.

you are beating a dead horse...the left argues that Christians are not to be allowed...all the time...so "Affirmative Action" would apply...whether ya agree with it or not! and for your comment to Mr.P that we all are insulting you...I have not seen any insults...just common sense arguments!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then stop with the innuendo and do so, but not publically whining on the board.

Who is publicly whining? Has anyone lodged a complaint against me?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

...the left argues that Christians are not to be allowed...all the time...

You seem to be confusing the left's idea that religion should not be a factor in choosing people for office with the right's idea that it should be a factor.


Or is it just not possible for you to comprehend the idea that one can make appointments without regard to people's personal religious views?

"Affirmative Action" would apply...whether ya agree with it or not!

By definition affirmative action is an attempt to diversity a group of people. If a group of people is already 100% Christian - you are not doing any affirmative action by adding a Christian to the group.

This is why they offer scholarships for blacks in predominantly white schools and scholarships for whites in predominantly black schools.

and for your comment to Mr.P that we all are insulting you...I have not seen any insults...just common sense arguments!

You apparently have a severe reading comprehension problem. I did not accuse everyone of insulting me, only Mr. P. If you do not believe calling someone a "moron" is an insult, well, OK then, you're a moron.