Bush violates Civil Rights Act

manu1959 said:
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"

He didn't. He merely said one of the reasons he nominated her was religion is a big part of her life. It doesn't have to be a specific religion - he's not allowed to even require that a nominee have any religion at all.
 
Avatar4321 said:
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.

That's kinda the entire POINT of the Civil Rights Act with regard to hiring practices.

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.

The Civil Rights prohibits him using religion as a basis for his decision - doesn't matter if the person or people injured by it can be known. Obviously, if he is basing his decision on religion, this means other qualified candidates were excluded because they weren't religious - we have now way of knowing who they are.


My landlord in for my old place told me he doesn't rent to blacks. He's obviously violating the fair housing act - just because I don't know the names of the blacks that he didn't rent to because they were black doesn't mean I don't know that he's a violator of civil rights.


. Otherwise shut up.
no.
 
Mr. P said:
Still Waiting..for that link to "THE" transcript that proves you have a clue there, bucko..

You have a verbatim excerpt from the transcript of the relevant statement. If you want the entire thing, find it yourself. I honestly can't remember what search terms I used to get the whole thing to pop up first on the search. It was a statement made Wednesday - so its likely putting in the same terms will turn up different results and maybe that's why I was unable to relocate for you.
 
SpidermanTuba said:
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.

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

exactly.....so please show me the bush quote where he said i am nominating her because she is a born again christian.....you can't....in fact your entire crusade against her and bush is because of their religious faith.....you are no better than nazi germany and their persecution of jews or radical islam and their attacks on those that will not follow them.....anything you disagree with you attack and wish to remove.....this is why i will fight you and anyone like you to the "death".....for there is no room in your world except for those that agree with you
 
SpidermanTuba said:
You have a verbatim excerpt from the transcript of the relevant statement. If you want the entire thing, find it yourself. I honestly can't remember what search terms I used to get the whole thing to pop up first on the search. It was a statement made Wednesday - so its likely putting in the same terms will turn up different results and maybe that's why I was unable to relocate for you.

i found it.... it doesn't say what you said it says.....if you don't belive me go look it up yourself
 
manu1959 said:
exactly.....so please show me the bush quote where he said i am nominating her because she is a born again christian.....you can't....in fact your entire crusade against her and bush is because of their religious faith.....you are no better than nazi germany and their persecution of jews or radical islam and their attacks on those that will not follow them.....anything you disagree with you attack and wish to remove.....this is why i will fight you and anyone like you to the "death".....for there is no room in your world except for those that agree with you


Where in this entire thread have I said ANYTHING against Miers' herself? Hmmm NOWHERE. Its NONEXISTANT. You MADE IT UP, conjured it from THIN AIR.

I'm only contending that Bush said he hired Miers in part because she is religious - which he did - and that its WRONG to hire people based on their religious beliefs.

What does hiring people based on their religious beliefs mean? Since you seem to have trouble understanding - I'll provide some examples.


Hiring someone because they are an atheist
Not hiring someone because they are Christian
Hiring someone beause they are religious
Not hiring someone because they are Muslim
Hiring someone because they are a 7th day adventist
Not hiring somoene because they believe in God
Hiring somoene because they believe in God.

ALL of the above constitute discrimination based on RELIGION - and that's what I'm against.

Here's one

Hiring someone without regard to their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Can you see how the above is DIFFERENT from the previous 7 hiring practices?


You seem to be confusing my idea that people should be hired WITHOUT regard to their religious beliefs or lack thereof with your idea that people should be hired based on their reliigous beliefs.


Get your facts straight before you go on a tirade of accusing people of being nazis.

Hmmm - does hiring people without regard to their religious beliefs or lack thereof mean that you only want to hire non-religious people? Lets see - WITHOUT regard to their religous beliefs. You do know what the word "without" means don't you?
 
SpidermanTuba said:
Uhh, nice try, but I already looked it up earlier today and cut and pasted it onto the top of this thread.

then why did you lie two posts earlier and say you couldn't find it? i still contend that it does not say that bush nominated her because she is a born again christin and that he is discriminating against more qualified non-born again christians ...
 
manu1959 said:
then why did you lie two posts earlier and say you couldn't find it? i still contend that it does not say that bush nominated her because she is a born again christin and that he is discriminating against more qualified non-born again christians ...

I couldn't find it when you asked for it.

It doesn't say that he nominated her because she's a born again Christian - you're right. I never even claimed it said that. So I fail to see your point. You're just making stuff up now, kind of silly.
 
SpidermanTuba said:
I couldn't find it when you asked for it.

It doesn't say that he nominated her because she's a born again Christian - you're right. I never even claimed it said that. So I fail to see your point. You're just making stuff up now, kind of silly.

fair enough.....if, as you say, he did not nominate her because she is a born agian christian....then i fail to see how he is dicriminating against non-born again christians or even favouring born again christians.....which has been the nexus of your argument for the past few days

edit: oh yea forgot....game set match...thank you ...good night
 
SpidermanTuba said:
You have a verbatim excerpt from the transcript of the relevant statement. If you want the entire thing, find it yourself. I honestly can't remember what search terms I used to get the whole thing to pop up first on the search. It was a statement made Wednesday - so its likely putting in the same terms will turn up different results and maybe that's why I was unable to relocate for you.
I did look. Yesterday when you made the first post.. All I found was a UsaToday article, no transcript, just a newspaper article.

Now here’s the thing, no one here should have to search out the links you quote, you should post them or at the very least mark them so you can support your post. It’s a matter of credibility.

Do you expect me, or anyone else to just take your word for it, or just go fish?
Much less accept a newspaper article as proof. Much to the chagrin of left wingers,
moderates and conservatives know, you can’t believe everything you read in the newspaper or even hear on the FOX news channel.

So, try an find the transcript would ya, that cut and paste stuff just doesn't get it. But really, my guess is there isn’t one.
I could be wrong.
 
SpidermanTuba said:
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

You just answered your own assertion.........Bush never said her religion was required just that he admired it and includied it in a list of her qualifiacations, and in case you have forgotten it is the president's option to choose whomever he wants...........If the Senate votes against her so be it.
 
It says it RIGHT HERE IN THE CONSITUTION

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

Sir, I think we all see your point here. Our point is it doesn't apply to this situatuion.

Read Article II of the Constitution - Executive Powers of the President. The President can pardon a convicted felon if he wants[see Bill Clinton]. He can appoint anybody he wants for whatever reason he wants. There is a separation of powers for a reason. Executive Powers are his constitutional right. Good luck trying to strip that from him in court.

As you say, "It says it RIGHT HERE IN THE CONSITUTION" :banned:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

http://www.vote-smart.org/resource_constitution.php#ArticleII



It may suck, but the president can get up there and say, "hey i'm appointing this guy because I don't want a [insert deragatory remark] in there" and it would be perfectly legal. We have to take the good with the bad when it comes to the president, thats why we have to be careful of who we put in there.
 
We have no evidence that President Bush nominated her solely based on her faith. We do have evidence that President Clinton nominated Madam Albright as the Secretary of State because she is a woman. Does that mean He violated the civil rights act for appointing her since she is a woman? What about Justice Ginsberg?

Did George H W Bush violate the act by nominating Justice Scalia since he is black?

Did Reagan violate the act by nominating Justice O'Conner?

I think you have a better argument that he violated the act by appointing her based on the fact that she is a woman then based on her religious beliefs.
 
manu1959 said:
fair enough.....if, as you say, he did not nominate her because she is a born agian christian....then i fail to see how he is dicriminating against non-born again christians or even favouring born again christians.....which has been the nexus of your argument for the past few days

edit: oh yea forgot....game set match...thank you ...good night



No - the nexus of my argument has been that he nominated her because she is religious. Try going back and reading the past few pages. You'll see its abundantly clear thats what my argument is. He's not allowed to base his decision on how religious - or how unreligious - a person is.
 
He's perfectly allowed to stand up and say I nominated her because she is a good Christian. Just as he can pardon convicted family members

:dance:
 
Mr. P said:
I did look. Yesterday when you made the first post.. All I found was a UsaToday article, no transcript, just a newspaper article.

Now here’s the thing, no one here should have to search out the links you quote, you should post them or at the very least mark them so you can support your post. It’s a matter of credibility.

Do you expect me, or anyone else to just take your word for it, or just go fish?
Much less accept a newspaper article as proof. Much to the chagrin of left wingers,
moderates and conservatives know, you can’t believe everything you read in the newspaper or even hear on the FOX news channel.

So, try an find the transcript would ya, that cut and paste stuff just doesn't get it. But really, my guess is there isn’t one.
I could be wrong.


You're right, i should have posted the link. I honestly thought it would be easy to find again if anyone asked for it - I was wrong. Probably because its a recent occurance and the google spiders are busy piling up lots of different - but related - things which match the same search terms.

But actually - you're the only one so far who has suggested I might have fabricated the entire thing. If you honestly trust me so little that you think I would fabricate a verbatime statement by the President and then base an argument on it - perhaps you shouldn't be conversing with me at all.
 
Bonnie said:
You just answered your own assertion.........Bush never said her religion was required just that he admired it and includied it in a list of her qualifiacations, and in case you have forgotten it is the president's option to choose whomever he wants...........If the Senate votes against her so be it.

So you admit that Bush is using religion as one of many reasons for choosing her?
 
theHawk said:
Sir, I think we all see your point here. Our point is it doesn't apply to this situatuion.

Read Article II of the Constitution - Executive Powers of the President. The President can pardon a convicted felon if he wants[see Bill Clinton]. He can appoint anybody he wants for whatever reason he wants. There is a separation of powers for a reason. Executive Powers are his constitutional right. Good luck trying to strip that from him in court.

As you say, "It says it RIGHT HERE IN THE CONSITUTION" :banned:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

http://www.vote-smart.org/resource_constitution.php#ArticleII



It may suck, but the president can get up there and say, "hey i'm appointing this guy because I don't want a [insert deragatory remark] in there" and it would be perfectly legal. We have to take the good with the bad when it comes to the president, thats why we have to be careful of who we put in there.

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

Is the position of Supreme Court Justice an office? Yes it is. Does the above statement say that nominations by the President are an exception? No, it doesn't. If Bush uses religion as a qualification - he is imposing a religious test as a qualification to a public office - is he not?
 

Forum List

Back
Top