Senators Were Right to Ask Those Questions on Religion

[trotsky]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-were-right-to-ask-those-questions-on-religion-11547582613

Regarding your editorial “Kamala Harris’s Dark Knights” (Jan. 3): Sens. Harris and Mazie Hirono’s questions for Brian Buescher were focused on appropriate and important questions, namely whether the nominee could be counted on as a federal judge to recognize and protect the legal equality of LGBTQ Americans and the right of American women to have access to safe and legal abortion.

You charge that such questioning is about trying to “banish” people from public life for their religious beliefs and associations. In reality, protecting the legal rights of all Americans of all faiths by ensuring that nominees for powerful lifetime seats on America’s federal courts are committed to enforcing them is one of senators’ most important responsibilities, one that the current Republican majority has abandoned in its rush to achieve ideological domination of the courts.

Michael Keegan
President
People For the American Way

People often ask atheists why they care about religion, why they talk about religion, or why they are so interested in religion. This is why. It affects our lives whether we believe in it or not.

[LongtimeAZDem]

1. Which is another reason to distrust Tulsi Gabbard

“It is unfortunate that Congresswoman Gabbard based her misguided opinion on the far-right wing manipulation of these straightforward questions,” Hirono spokesman Will Dempster said in a statement.

He added that over the past two years, Hirono “has been attacked by right wing ideologues for her examination of Donald Trump’s ideologically-driven nominees to the courts.”

“Senator Hirono asks all judicial nominees — particularly those who have expressed very strong personal ideological views in conflict with Supreme Court precedent — if they can be fair,” Dempster said. “She asked Mr. Buescher, who has a clear record of anti-choice activism, whether he could separate his personal beliefs from decisions he would make if confirmed for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.”

In a statement, Gabbard spokeswoman Lauren McIlvaine said Gabbard will “always fight for religious freedom and oppose religious bigotry — no matter where it comes from or to whom it’s directed.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hawaii-rep-tulsi-gabbard-accuses-fellow-democrats-of-religious-bigotry-in-questioning-judicial-nominee/2019/01/09/2c17ecdc-1467-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.806a27a844e0

[Duppers]

4. ☝

[thucythucy]

2. It's ironic that the editorial opines about trying to "banish" people from public life

for their religious beliefs, when the reality is these appointed zealots threaten to do precisely that to LGBTQ Americans, that is, to banish them from the American mainstream.

There is so much projection in American politics today, as exemplified, of course, by our Projector-in-Chief.

[MineralMan]

3. Exactly. Our government officials should always

be asked if they fully support the freedom of religion promised in the First Amendment, across the board. Any answer other than "Absolutely and completely," should be grounds for failure to confirm them for their positions.

[Major Nikon]

5. Freedom to them means the freedom to discriminate

So it’s not as if they would have problems with the question.