The Kavanaughing of Neomi Rao - Trump Judge nominee

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

Post Reply

Topic author
philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

The Kavanaughing of Neomi Rao - Trump Judge nominee

#1

Post by philip964 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:02 pm

https://news.yahoo.com/kavanaughing-neo ... 29865.html

Interesting read.

Didn’t know about this.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24263
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kavanaughing of Neomi Rao - Trump Judge nominee

#2

Post by The Annoyed Man » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:02 pm

I read about this earlier today, but I think it was at AmericanThinker.com. Anyway, the article made the point that asking these people about their religious beliefs (“Ms Rao, do you believe that gay marriage is a sin?”) is actually a violation of their powers under Article VI of the Constitution. In Paragraph III, it very specifically says:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
When Corey Booker asked Amy Comey Barrett in 2017 if she was Catholic during her confirmation hearings to the appellate court, that was a violation of the limits on his authority under Article VI, and he had no right at all to ask it.

When Feinstein told Barret in that same hearing, “The [Catholic] dogma lives strongly in you, and that is concerning’, she was violating the limits on her authority under Article VI, and she had no right to ask it at all.

When Corey asked Rao today, “Do you think that gay marriage is a sin”, he was violating the limits on his authority under Article VI, and he had no right to ask it.

But don’t be surprised. The democrats use the Constitution for toilet paper. They really don’t believe they have any limitations on their powers.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4340
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: The Kavanaughing of Neomi Rao - Trump Judge nominee

#3

Post by bblhd672 » Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:49 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:02 pm
I read about this earlier today, but I think it was at AmericanThinker.com. Anyway, the article made the point that asking these people about their religious beliefs (“Ms Rao, do you believe that gay marriage is a sin?”) is actually a violation of their powers under Article VI of the Constitution. In Paragraph III, it very specifically says:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
When Corey Booker asked Amy Comey Barrett in 2017 if she was Catholic during her confirmation hearings to the appellate court, that was a violation of the limits on his authority under Article VI, and he had no right at all to ask it.

When Feinstein told Barret in that same hearing, “The [Catholic] dogma lives strongly in you, and that is concerning’, she was violating the limits on her authority under Article VI, and she had no right to ask it at all.

When Corey asked Rao today, “Do you think that gay marriage is a sin”, he was violating the limits on his authority under Article VI, and he had no right to ask it.

But don’t be surprised. The democrats use the Constitution for toilet paper. They really don’t believe they have any limitations on their powers.
I understand judges want to be confirmed, but it seems that a proper response to that line of questions would be to state that they are a violation of Article VI of the Constitution. Only socialist progressives will have a problem with it.
“In the information society, nobody thinks. We expected to banish paper, but we actually banished thought.” - Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24263
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kavanaughing of Neomi Rao - Trump Judge nominee

#4

Post by The Annoyed Man » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:35 pm

bblhd672 wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:49 am
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:02 pm
I read about this earlier today, but I think it was at AmericanThinker.com. Anyway, the article made the point that asking these people about their religious beliefs (“Ms Rao, do you believe that gay marriage is a sin?”) is actually a violation of their powers under Article VI of the Constitution. In Paragraph III, it very specifically says:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
When Corey Booker asked Amy Comey Barrett in 2017 if she was Catholic during her confirmation hearings to the appellate court, that was a violation of the limits on his authority under Article VI, and he had no right at all to ask it.

When Feinstein told Barret in that same hearing, “The [Catholic] dogma lives strongly in you, and that is concerning’, she was violating the limits on her authority under Article VI, and she had no right to ask it at all.

When Corey asked Rao today, “Do you think that gay marriage is a sin”, he was violating the limits on his authority under Article VI, and he had no right to ask it.

But don’t be surprised. The democrats use the Constitution for toilet paper. They really don’t believe they have any limitations on their powers.
I understand judges want to be confirmed, but it seems that a proper response to that line of questions would be to state that they are a violation of Article VI of the Constitution. Only socialist progressives will have a problem with it.
I absolutely agree. The ONLY people who ask those kinds of questions are the commies on the left. Conservatives NEVER ask them - even of a democrat nominee. Ultimately Rao will not get a single vote from the Feinstein/Harris/Hirono/Booker/Blumenthal cabal. Not one. So it REALLY doesn’t hurt her odds of confirmation if she puts them in their place - respectfully - and just might firm up votes from the squishy republicans. If I’m one of those nominees, and I’m asked a question like “Do you think that gay marriage is a sin”, my answer would be, “respectfully Senator, my personal views on the matter are irrelevant to the law, and Aricle VI of the Constitution says, word for word, that ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’ Since we are engaged in a Constitutional process here, it harms that process to ask, or be required to answer questions that are extraConstitutional with regard to religion. I hope you will receive this answer in the spirit of respect for the Constitution that it was intended.”

Image
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3667
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: The Kavanaughing of Neomi Rao - Trump Judge nominee

#5

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:51 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:35 pm
bblhd672 wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:49 am
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:02 pm
I read about this earlier today, but I think it was at AmericanThinker.com. Anyway, the article made the point that asking these people about their religious beliefs (“Ms Rao, do you believe that gay marriage is a sin?”) is actually a violation of their powers under Article VI of the Constitution. In Paragraph III, it very specifically says:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
When Corey Booker asked Amy Comey Barrett in 2017 if she was Catholic during her confirmation hearings to the appellate court, that was a violation of the limits on his authority under Article VI, and he had no right at all to ask it.

When Feinstein told Barret in that same hearing, “The [Catholic] dogma lives strongly in you, and that is concerning’, she was violating the limits on her authority under Article VI, and she had no right to ask it at all.

When Corey asked Rao today, “Do you think that gay marriage is a sin”, he was violating the limits on his authority under Article VI, and he had no right to ask it.

But don’t be surprised. The democrats use the Constitution for toilet paper. They really don’t believe they have any limitations on their powers.
I understand judges want to be confirmed, but it seems that a proper response to that line of questions would be to state that they are a violation of Article VI of the Constitution. Only socialist progressives will have a problem with it.
I absolutely agree. The ONLY people who ask those kinds of questions are the commies on the left. Conservatives NEVER ask them - even of a democrat nominee. Ultimately Rao will not get a single vote from the Feinstein/Harris/Hirono/Booker/Blumenthal cabal. Not one. So it REALLY doesn’t hurt her odds of confirmation if she puts them in their place - respectfully - and just might firm up votes from the squishy republicans. If I’m one of those nominees, and I’m asked a question like “Do you think that gay marriage is a sin”, my answer would be, “respectfully Senator, my personal views on the matter are irrelevant to the law, and Aricle VI of the Constitution says, word for word, that ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’ Since we are engaged in a Constitutional process here, it harms that process to ask, or be required to answer questions that are extraConstitutional with regard to religion. I hope you will receive this answer in the spirit of respect for the Constitution that it was intended.”

Image
But let a conservative ask anything remotely related to religious beliefs of a Muslim nominee and watch the MSM jump all over them.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24263
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: The Kavanaughing of Neomi Rao - Trump Judge nominee

#6

Post by The Annoyed Man » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:57 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:51 pm
But let a conservative ask anything remotely related to religious beliefs of a Muslim nominee and watch the MSM jump all over them.
You’re absolutely right, and this stuff certainly can cut both ways.....although I don’t recall any conservatives asking a muslim religious questions during a senate judicial confirmation hearing. I could be wrong about that, and if you can point me to one such example, I’ll own my mistake. I’m not perfect. Yes i am. No I’m not. YES I AM! Well, as you can see, the issue is still undecided. :mrgreen:
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”