Diane Feinstein
- Thread starter BIGOSUFAN
- Start date
Please secede CA, and take all these hypocritical dip shits with you!
Just out of curiosity - can someone here compare Halacha, Sharia and Dogma for me as they relate to fitness for office/appointment?
Just curious if ones beliefs are equally irrelevant when the belief is Islamic or Jewish as when Catholic.
Just curious if ones beliefs are equally irrelevant when the belief is Islamic or Jewish as when Catholic.
Lefties would lose their mind if that line of "questioning" was directed at a Muslim and depending on a few things (political points), if it were directed at someone of Jewish faith.
Don't be intentionally obtuse.
Ahh, goon. Is that really all you have? Disappointing really. Sports on a political board...
Hurt your feelings? I take it back then...
You got an opinion on this or just dog piling on with the anti Feinstein sentiment?
The left can deflect all they want it's a clear case of blatant hypocrisy. Wouldn't dare do that to someone who isn't a Christian.
Last edited:
Agree mostly. Many here would of course support (or rather demand) similar questioning of Jews or Muslims. Is that a double standard?
I think asking what a judge's thought process and decision making process would be is fair game but attacking someone simply because of their faith is out of bounds. It was clear the line of questioning was going after her Catholic faith.
Everyone at the hearing knew Feinstein and the other Democrats were not going to vote for her. It was total pandering to the far left and planed parenthood crowd.
To the extent that faith is part of the decision making process, does that make it fair game to ask questions about that faith? Serious questions - my POV is it is entirely relevant and should be respectfully pursued, whether the nominee is Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, whatever. The knee jerk reaction to Feinstein appears to be mostly partisan objection to the the term "Dogma", of course I could have missed something...
I'm don't think asking if her religious beliefs factor into her decision making process is unreasonable.
It was the obvious hostility that I think pissed everyone off. Hostility like that towards a Muslim, Jew or other religions would set the left off. But the left thinks it's acceptable if it's done to a conservative religious person. Hypocrites.
It was the obvious hostility that I think pissed everyone off. Hostility like that towards a Muslim, Jew or other religions would set the left off. But the left thinks it's acceptable if it's done to a conservative religious person. Hypocrites.
You have an example of the hostility? Haven't seen video but the excerpts don't show it IMO. The commentary refers to "dog whistle" questions which sounds like thin skinned over reaction to me.
The full statement:
"Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that — you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country."
IMO, the use of that particular word "dogma" IS problematic given the history of anti-Catholic sentiment and statutes within our government. IMO, she was essentially implying (maybe out right claiming) that the nominee would be a "papist" (in the derogatory sense it has been used historically) instead of a Judge.
She could have explored the nominee's views and rulings regarding the "when personal views conflict with the clear language of the law)" issue without resorting to historical dog whistle buzzwords. Hell, I imagine every judge and most attorneys struggle with that conflict.
Papist is derogatory. If that term were used I would agree.
Dogma is the term the Church uses to describes the articles of faith, no? Not sure how that can be described as derogatory.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33187
Last edited:
"The [Catholic] dogma lives loudly in you....." was a papist dog whistle. It was a suggestion that she is a papist for whom Dogma lives louder than respect for the rule of law.
Just like "Islam....the religion of peace"....is recited by the right to call into question the true intent of Muslims doing anything. No actual word is itself derogatory in that either.
I don't expect you'll ever go on record here agreeing. I think privately you personally recognize it.
In other words, I believe you are engaging in a bit of partisanship yourself by refusing to acknowledge the problematic nature of how she went about this.
What you see as partisanship is more correctly described as a general lack of respect for those who oversubscribe to a spiritual base for decision making, I have no problem acknowledging my own bias there.
As to the use of the word dogma - is that the problem in your mind? If she had said "You clearly have strong religious beliefs..." would you feel better or would that too be "dog whistling"?
Please. You couldn't insult me if you hired the Russians to do it.
I already posted my opinion. Maybe you're the one with hurt feelings since your reaction was name calling (rather lame too). It's absolutely true that the left would enter meltdown mode if similar rhetoric had been used in questioning of a Muslim.
Lots of personal judgment in your first statement and pretty undefined standards. What is the point a person oversubscribed toa spiritual base? Do you have a similar lack of respect for any other bases that people oversubscribe to?
No....it's not the use of a particular word. The problem in my mind is the unnecessary and unhelpful suggestion that I see in her statement that people of strong faith can't or won't follow the law as they see and interpret it. It's the focus and judgment on her religious belief as a potential problem when the Constitution bans religious tests.
They are to me...for the record.
Not for me as I believe it is equally inappropriate to explore in those situations.
The underlying topic of what a Judge might do when there is a possibility that a deeply held personal conviction might bias them from fairly deciding a case based upon the law is a valid discussion.
It's the focus, suggestion and doubt that it is only the religious folk that will be unable to recognize when they should recuse or that won't recuse when they know they should because (in this case) loyalty to the Pope/Church supecedes loyalty to the law that I find problematic.
There are plenty of other ways to explore than underlying topic than the one pursued to which I would have no objection. I don't want my judges oversubscribing to any personal base for legal decision making.....beyond jurisprudential theory supporting respect for the law, rules of statutory construction, and plain meaning of the words in the law.
As acknowledged.
Agree with much of your post. The point of contention is the "dog whistle" claim. I just don't think it is there. Not that I give a rip about Feinstein, but the inquiry is legit IMO.
You don't think it is there....while acknowledging that you have a general lack of respect for the subjects of the dog whistle. Maybe your view on whether it is, in fact, a dog whistle is colored a bit by your admitted bias.
Maybe
If there are plenty of less provocative, less controversial ways to make the inquiry into the generally applicable issue of personal conviction conflicting with jurisprudential thought and holding issues....and someone goes straight to a discussion of religion of the nominee....goes straight to you got a lot of Dogma in you...that's a dog whistle IMO.
Last edited:
Can you describe when some "oversubscribes" to a spiritual base to make decisions to you? Or is it a more, "I know it when I see it or feel it" thing?
Are there any other bases that someone oversubscribes to for which you have a similar level of disrespect? Or is it just spiritual bases?
Hmmmm.... can I lay on the couch and tell you how I feel? Is this a safe place?
I think there are clear cut cases - tests which indicate that someone is unfit for the judiciary because they lack the impartiality to apply Constitutional principles when they conflict with an underlying belief (most often a religious based belief). The discussion on Gorsuch for instace: his study under Finnis, and subscription to Natural Law were worthwhile. Calder v. Bull (specifically the Chase argument) is an example of oversubscription to a philosophy or belief.
Is this kind thinking limited to spiritual beliefs - no. It is most prevalent however. The appeal to a moral authority inherent in most religions is more problematic than those based on a philosophy or cultural tradition. Generally, an appeal to emotion, and appeal to a moral authority - take your pick from any of the major logical fallacies - none of these should be the basis for making judicial decisions.
Good post. Thanks.
Some thoughts.
1. I disagree that the appeal to a moral authority is either more prevalent or more problematic in judiciary decision making than those based upon a philosophy or cultural tradition.
2. I also view natural law jurisprudence as more a philosophical, not religious, doctrine. Yes, strains of natural law theory have been adopted by and commingled in Christianity (thereby advancing the belief that natural law is provided by God), but natural law philosophy predates Christianity with Plato and Socrates and extends into and through all kinds of philosophers both religious and non-religious. I don't view appeal to authority of natural law as a fundamentally or exclusively religious/spiritual argument.
Last edited:
One could credibly state that Christianity is the synthesis of the Rabbinic traditions and the Greek traditions of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle.
A memorable retort when such a theory was advanced by a brash undergrad "only if you believe in progressive revelation".
Dr. Scott was an odd duck.
A memorable retort when such a theory was advanced by a brash undergrad "only if you believe in progressive revelation".
Dr. Scott was an odd duck.
