Bush violates Civil Rights Act

[William Joyce]

Look, SpiderTuba, if you're looking for acknowledgement that there's some cleverness to your idea that Bush violated the Civil Rights Act or the religious test clause, OK. Lots of lawyers get clever ideas... which are often just a little too cute to pass muster. You're going on about these "violations" of the law, but who, exactly, is going to challenge this in court?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Look, SpiderTuba, if you're looking for acknowledgement that there's some cleverness to your idea that Bush violated the Civil Rights Act or the religious test clause, OK. Lots of lawyers get clever ideas... which are often just a little too cute to pass muster. You're going on about these "violations" of the law, but who, exactly, is going to challenge this in court?

One doesn't have to be "clever" to see that selecting someone for a job based on their religion is a violation of the Civil Rights Act, one must only need to know how to read.


No one will likely challenge it in Court. Most instances of employer discrimination are never even reported, much less enter a courtroom. But its important the American people realize the President is violating the Constitution and the Law. If we sit by and say "well its OK for the President to violate the Civil Rights Act - as long as he can get away with it!" - well, that's no good.

 

[Mr. P]

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!

It's a non-issue cept with the elite illiterates that have no f'ing clue what they are speaking of. It's the same old drum beat, Bush is ___________.(Fill the blank.)

 

[Mr. P]

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.

No a fact and it wasn't even addressed to you...But I'm glad you read it anyway. The shoe fits pal.

 

[Avatar4321]

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

Please don't insult our intelligence. We can read quite fine. The problem is you haven't established that any religious test has been used or even what a religious test is.

 

[Mr. P]

Damn..Still waiting on that transcript SpidermanTuba..

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Hello? She isn't his employee. The Judicial Branch is a separate but equal branch of government. The Executive and Legislative branches do not employ them.

Of course you still have to established that she was selected based on religion.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Can't deal with the facts so you are back to the personal insults? Isn't that why you were banned the first time? Cant handle people having valid points that contradict your own so they have to be racist or some other bad word.

Employers should be free to hire whomever they feel will be the best employee. There is nothing racist about that. What the heck do you have against freedom? Higher the best person for the job.

Oh and President Bush didn't violate the Civil Rights act. If you think he has file suit against him. I am sure you could get Soros, Kerry, or some other wealthy liberal to back you if you need the money.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Please don't insult our intelligence.

I was responding who dilloduck who claimed it was perfectly legal to use religion as a basis of selection.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Hello? She isn't his employee. The Judicial Branch is a separate but equal branch of government. The Executive and Legislative branches do not employ them.

Of course you still have to established that she was selected based on religion.

Hello - the same applies to anyone who makes a selection of behalf of an employer. If you subcontract out your hiring department - all of sudden this means they can hire people based on race or religion? Hmm NO.

Her employer is the people of the United States. The people making the hiring decision, however, are not the people of the United States. The President and the Senate make that decision on our behalf - and they are bound by the Civil Rights Act just the same.

Do you honestly believe its legal to discriminate based on religion or race as long as you are a third party doing the hiring for another entity?? Is this your honest intepretation of the law? Seriously?

 

[Avatar4321]

One doesn't have to be "clever" to see that selecting someone for a job based on their religion is a violation of the Civil Rights Act, one must only need to know how to read.


No one will likely challenge it in Court. Most instances of employer discrimination are never even reported, much less enter a courtroom. But its important the American people realize the President is violating the Constitution and the Law. If we sit by and say "well its OK for the President to violate the Civil Rights Act - as long as he can get away with it!" - well, that's no good.

Again with the insults. Most of us have read the act. You seem to be ignoring parts of it that don't agree with you. Such as the fact that the Supreme Court Justice is not an employee of the President.

If you think The President is violating the law. Bring a suit in equity for an injunction against him to prevent Meirs from sitting on the Court.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Employers should be free to hire whomever they feel will be the best employee. There is nothing racist about that. What the heck do you have against freedom? Higher the best person for the job.

Oh and President Bush didn't violate the Civil Rights act. If you think he has file suit against him. I am sure you could get Soros, Kerry, or some other wealthy liberal to back you if you need the money.

A) it was your statement that the Civil Rights Act should be unenforcible - which means you think its should be acceptable to discriminate in hiring based on race - which means either I) you dislike people of a certain race or II) you honestly believe that being of a certain race makes you more or less qualified for a job. Either way you're a racist.

B) I have no standing to sue. I'm not sure that anyone does. But I suppose then when I asked you if it was your position that its OK to violate the law as long as you can get away with it - your answer is a resounding "yes"

 

[Avatar4321]

Hello - the same applies to anyone who makes a selection of behalf of an employer. If you subcontract out your hiring department - all of sudden this means they can hire people based on race or religion? Hmm NO.

Her employer is the people of the United States. The people making the hiring decision, however, are not the people of the United States. The President and the Senate make that decision on our behalf - and they are bound by the Civil Rights Act just the same.

Do you honestly believe its legal to discriminate based on religion or race as long as you are a third party doing the hiring for another entity?? Is this your honest intepretation of the law? Seriously?

Maybe if i write in big bold letters you will be able to comprehend this simple fact:

NO ONE IS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

Establish that and maybe you will have a point.

 

[manu1959]

Hello - the same applies to anyone who makes a selection of behalf of an employer. If you subcontract out your hiring department - all of sudden this means they can hire people based on race or religion? Hmm NO.

Her employer is the people of the United States. The people making the hiring decision, however, are not the people of the United States. The President and the Senate make that decision on our behalf - and they are bound by the Civil Rights Act just the same.

Do you honestly believe its legal to discriminate based on religion or race as long as you are a third party doing the hiring for another entity?? Is this your honest intepretation of the law? Seriously?

bush is not doing the hiring....and he doesn't get a say so he ain't doing shit....why is this such a big deal to you.....

also...when bush said roberts faith was not a factor that was that discrimination?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Again with the insults. Most of us have read the act. You seem to be ignoring parts of it that don't agree with you. Such as the fact that the Supreme Court Justice is not an employee of the President.

If you think The President is violating the law. Bring a suit in equity for an injunction against him to prevent Meirs from sitting on the Court.

So you do honestly believe that a third party that is doing the hiring for an entity has the legal right to make the hiring decisions based on race or religion?
That is an interesting position NOT shared by the courts.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Maybe if i write in big bold letters you will be able to comprehend this simple fact:

NO ONE IS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

Establish that and maybe you will have a point.

Discrimination is not always against someone - it can be for someone as well. If you hire someone because they are white - that's just as disciminatory as not hiring someone because they are black.

 

[manu1959]

Discrimination is not always against someone - it can be for someone as well. If you hire someone because they are white - that's just as disciminatory as not hiring someone because they are black.

if it is "for" someone it would be called favouritisim.....again show me where bush said "i nominated her because she is a born again christian"

 

[Avatar4321]

A) it was your statement that the Civil Rights Act should be unenforcible - which means you think its should be acceptable to discriminate in hiring based on race - which means either I) you dislike people of a certain race or II) you honestly believe that being of a certain race makes you more or less qualified for a job. Either way you're a racist.

B) I have no standing to sue. I'm not sure that anyone does. But I suppose then when I asked you if it was your position that its OK to violate the law as long as you can get away with it - your answer is a resounding "yes"

Forcing employers to higher people they don't want should be unconstitutional. There is no racial component to that. If the white guy is more qualified he should be hired. If the Black guy is more qualified he should be hired. If the boss wants to hired the more qualified jewish woman she should be hired. The point is Congress has no business telling employers who they can and cannot hire. I know you assume that this means I support racism because you disagree with me. That is your problem not mine.

If President Bush descriminated against someone in his pick for the Supreme Court and if the Civil Rights act even applies to this situation then obviously the person discriminated against would have standing. The fact that no one has standing shows that there was no one injury. Without an injury, the Civil rights act could not have possibly been violated.

You obviously think the law has been violated and the President discriminated against someone. Go find that person and help them sue. Otherwise shut up.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

bush is not doing the hiring....and he doesn't get a say so he ain't doing shit....why is this such a big deal to you.....

Uhh, Bush does get a say so. That's what we call a "nomination". In fact, no one can become a justice without the President deciding that he wants them to be one.

The President and the Senate do the hiring. Neither can make a hiring decision without the other.

also...when bush said roberts faith was not a factor that was that discrimination?

No - you see, when someone's faith is NOT a factor, that's the OPPOSITE of discrimination. Do you honestly not understand this?

 

[Mr. P]

Still Waiting..for that link to "THE" transcript that proves you have a clue there, bucko..