Mr. P
VIP Member
Guys ya saved me the effort..Thanks.
Somehow, I don't think it will be enough though.
Somehow, I don't think it will be enough though.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
theim said:And why not? Care to point out where in the constitution it says religiosity cannot be a criteria to be considered?
SpidermanTuba said: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.
Mr. P said:What I know is you must PROVE what he said was what you think he said.
.
no1tovote4 said: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.
no1tovote4 said: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.
rtwngAvngr said:Hiring someone is not discrimination.
SpidermanTuba said: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.
I haven't seen a transcipt on this yet, do you have A link?SpidermanTuba said:Are you suggesting the transcript does not faithfully reproduce the words that came out of his mouth?
...
SpidermanTuba 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.
Yes, Congress will,MtnBiker said:Is the President hiring her or will the Congress be hiring her?
Mr. P said:Yes, Congress will,
another reason this so called court action is BS.
rtwngAvngr said:Hiring someone is not discrimination.
MtnBiker said:Is the President hiring her or will the Congress be hiring her?
no1tovote4 said: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."
Mr. P said:I haven't seen a transcipt on this yet, do you have A link?
I'll ignore the rest of your insults.
Trueno1tovote4 said:In fact if the Senate doesn't approve her because of her religion then they have violated the Civil Rights Act.
ThomasPaine said: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!!
Not at all, however cut an paste does not a transcipt make. Got a link to one?SpidermanTuba said: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?