JimSmith - 10/14/2005 3:52 PM
The point of the argument brought up is that if the POTUS picked Harriet because she is a religious facist of the pursuasion he subscribes to, and excluded other candidates from the job because they were not religious facists of his favorite flavor, then he has made religion a go-no go gage, Which is not legal. Now, if there is a qualification other than Harriet's religious facism that the POTUS considered tipped the balance in her favor, he might consider revealing it to us. (deleted text not appropriate to repeat) Without some logic for the selection, one can [bold]imagine[/bold] anything with about the same basis in fact as the explanations you and others who support the choice have offered. Jim
For the record, I never asserted GW did the appropriate thing by nominating Harriet. I did, in earlier posts, state that if he excluded a candidate based on religion, then he in fact Violated the provisions of the COTUS (look back, its there). Since we have no evidence this hapened, we are left to discuss the topic as presented (or mis represented as some might think). Given the written records of GW's statement (and the lack of the complete transcript), there does not seem to be, to me, evidence that religion was a "test of office". I also challenge you to find any language where i explicitly "supported the choice", as you allege. The debate is simple... Does the COTUS prevent the POTUS from using religion as a criterion in choosing a candidate or not. It certainly, explicitly, states religion cannot be used as a test for office...I'm just not sure what has been reported was a test (meaning qualification)of suitability, no more than I am not sure you have a mind to read...
If you look at the process for nominating SCJs, you will find there are no qualifications spelled out. It is the Presidents' perogative. He could nominate Gumby if he so wished; although, he probably would try to nominate someone who could pass the congressional screening (which he may not have done in this case)...
Lucky for us this debate about her confirmation is nothing but fodder for discussion... The confirmation process will weed out wether she is qualified or not.
Does anyone have a link to , or the actual text of GW's statement, that is not cut-off immediately after he said the r word?
Let me make it simple... Did the POTUS require
a test of religion (religious test)?
Clause 3: 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.