Posted on 10/03/2005 6:51:30 PM PDT by nwrep
"I refuse to believe he sold out." I'm with you. And sick of the whining by conservatives today, too.
I heard a caller on Michael Medved today who had attended the church she attended. Harriet attended. She said it was a born-again, spirit-filled church, non-denom, very solid, very Evangelical. And that Ms. Meir had been active and in leadership in the church for a long time. Good enough for me.
"SOUTER"
Well, dog my cats. I did not know that.
But then, living in Japan and not watching TV, I have never seen him speak on video.
After a quick Google search, I see a lot of speculation, but no outright confirmation. What's your source?
No, it's Article VI.
...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Apology accepted.
I thought you were discussing the qualifications for the judiciary, so it might be helpful if you put a section number in addition to the article when refering to the Constitution.
Nonetheless, since your original post was unclear and your second post smug, there is no apology for you to accept.
So do you favor disclosure of all spiritual and mental disorders or is the only one?
The Churches of Christ and Christian Churches in America result from an indigenous American movement seeking to restore the gospel and church of the New Testament. For this reason the term "Restoration Movement" has been employed as a self designation, though this particular phraseology is not widely employed to identify these churches by outsiders. Three sizable constituencies now exist from the late eighteenth century beginnings: (1) The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), (2) The Independent Christian Churches, and (3) The Churches of Christ.
If you are interested in reading more, a good summary of the history of these churches can be found at The Restoration Movement
Article VI is not divided into sections. Evidently you are completely unfamiliar with the document in question.
"So do you favor disclosure of all spiritual and mental disorders or is the only one?"
What kind of question is that?
Is there anybody who doesn't favor the disclosure of any mental disorder from which a nominee to the Supreme Court is suffering? Except those desperate to normalize SSAD?
Spiritual disorders, of course, only come to light through behavior.
Not at all. Been here since 1998, you've earned the right to call me a dingbat. :-)
Plus, I don't pick fights with Texans!
So much for Article VI
I'm not a Born again anything, in fact I'm barely Christian however I share nearly all the values of the fundementalists. And thats the main point. The issue is not whether someone has a brilliant legal mind but whether they can differentiate between FOLLOWING the law rather than making it to suit their own vision of America.
You could argue convincingly that Breyers, White, and Ginsburg are very qualified by legal training and accomplishments. But look at their decisions. Each of them has stated publicly that international law should trump the Constitution. Obviously they feel just fine overriding the decisions of our elected representatives.
All I want of a SCOTUS justice is some common sense, respect for the traditions and Constitution of the United States, and the understanding that a black robe doesn't make you a demi-god. I'd take that any day ahead of brilliant legalistic arguments.
Also, it is God who judges us, but Jesus will speak for us at the judgment if we are truly saved and have truly repented through Christ.
That's fine. There's nothing wrong with making judgments on behavior and actions.
I just don't believe it's our place to say Carter isn't a genuine Christian in his heart, if he claims to be.
And yes, when it comes to Clinton, I would agree that if he really is a Christian that he sure is doing a good job of hiding it.
To belabour the obvious, "political prosperity" has nothing to do with qualifications for SCOTUS.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . ." - G. Washington, "Farewell Address"To belabour the obvious, "political prosperity" has nothing to do with qualifications for SCOTUS.
"Political prosperity," as Washington used the term, was the not the mere ascendancy of a political faction but the very survival of the US as a democratic republic. SCOTUS Justices are singularly placed to guard that, or to subvert it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.