No Religious Test

[Viktor]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

 

[daveman]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

Well, to be fair, they've never read the Constitution.

 

[Viktor]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

Well, to be fair, they've never read the Constitution.

Want a laugh? Dianne Feinstein was raised as a Catholic and she objects to Catholic judges.

 

[daveman]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

Well, to be fair, they've never read the Constitution.

Want a laugh? Dianne Feinstein was raised as a Catholic and she objects to Catholic judges.

Of course she does. Her Catholicism is just performative.

Her real god is Government.

 

[lennypartiv]

Turns out Amy Coney Barrett is a Deep State plant.

Go to the 31:45 point in the video:

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

Well, to be fair, they've never read the Constitution.

They have read it but the question is do any of them understand what they are reading?

 

[my2¢]

Completely agree with my ex-Senator!

​

 

[daveman]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

Well, to be fair, they've never read the Constitution.

They have read it but the question is do any of them understand what they are reading?

Very few. They need their elite to tell them what to think.

 

[Viktor]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

Well, to be fair, they've never read the Constitution.

Want a laugh? Dianne Feinstein was raised as a Catholic and she objects to Catholic judges.

Of course she does. Her Catholicism is just performative.

Her real god is Government.

Feinstein is one of my Senators. Every time I wrote her with a suggestion or complaint, she ignored what I said and put words in my mouth. I suspect she may be functionally illiterate.

 

[daveman]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

Well, to be fair, they've never read the Constitution.

Want a laugh? Dianne Feinstein was raised as a Catholic and she objects to Catholic judges.

Of course she does. Her Catholicism is just performative.

Her real god is Government.

Feinstein is one of my Senators. Every time I wrote her with a suggestion or complaint, she ignored what I said and put words in my mouth. I suspect she may be functionally illiterate.

Your letters were probably being translated by her Chinese spy.

 

[White 6]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

True, and so are the ones that support it, though the republicans said it was too soon before an election to even consider a new justice when it was 9 or 10 months out. You know, the ends justify the means, self serving supporters of lies.

 

[daveman]

Article VI of the US Constitution says no religious test can be required as a qualification for office in the USA. The Democrats who complain about the religion of a judge are ignorant.

True, and so are the ones that support it, though the republicans said it was too soon before an election to even consider a new justice when it was 9 or 10 months out. You know, the ends justify the means, self serving supporters of lies.

Schumer and his fellow Democrats the real hypocrites when it comes to judicial nominees

That’s not to say that Schumer is unfamiliar with hypocrisy. During the George W. Bush administration, for example, he voted 25 times to filibuster judicial nominees. On Nov. 6, 2003, he boasted that “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster.” In fact, he said that doing so was “how it was intended to be.”

A decade later, however, Schumer voted to abolish those same filibusters so that Republicans could not do what he had done. That looks like “behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe.”​

Ooops.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Well, to be fair, they've never read the Constitution.

Well, to be fair, you can bet that is not true. The fact that we describe judicial nominees as being liberal or conservative interpreters of the Constitution is instituted in our society is proof that the Constitution can be interpreted differently, which is a major problem; and I am the only person in the WORLD who has formally addressed the problem.

United States Fourth Continental Congress

The United States Fourth Continental Congress (US4CC) will probably be the designation for the inevitable venue that orders the succeeding charter to the subsisting United States Constitution that was composed in 1787 by the legendary Philadelphia Convention, which for convenience for...

www.usmessageboard.com

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[daveman]

Well, to be fair, they've never read the Constitution.

Well, to be fair, you can bet that is not true. The fact that we describe judicial nominees as being liberal or conservative interpreters of the Constitution is instituted in our society is proof that the Constitution can be interpreted differently, which is a major problem; and I am the only person in the WORLD who has formally addressed the problem.

United States Fourth Continental Congress

The United States Fourth Continental Congress (US4CC) will probably be the designation for the inevitable venue that orders the succeeding charter to the subsisting United States Constitution that was composed in 1787 by the legendary Philadelphia Convention, which for convenience for...

www.usmessageboard.com

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

Formally? Like, you wore a tie?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

No. Formally, like, I have described it to be an error to suggest that federal employees have not read the Constitution (and formulated differing interpretations), and I have calculated and composed the most reasonable approach to solving the error. It has to do the evolution of the government and sophistication of the subsequent society.

Don't just be an average smart ass with me - get your shit together and consider the possibility that you are merely average.