Reply #8: So how did Bush discriminate against Miers for her Religion? [View All]

[happyslug]

The Civil Rights Acts are NOT criminal acts, they are Civil in Nature and are design to protect people from discrimination. If you want to use the Civil Rights acts you have to show how Miers was HARMED by Bush do to her religion. Obviously she was NOT harmed, she received the nomination.

Now if a third party can show that he or she LOST the chance to be nominated by Bush to to their Religion or lack of Religion and do to that act of discrimination Miers instead of him or her would have had the nomination, than that third party has a case of Religious discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. The problem is that any such person "harmed" do to Bush's discrimination do to Religion has to show Bush would have nominated them instead of Miers except for the issue of Religion. Given the limits of the nominating system the "Victim" would have to be someone in Bush's inner circle and most if not all are of the same or similar religious bent and thus NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.

You have an even weaker case with Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Now Clause three forbids a "Religious tests" what that meant in 1787 was that Congress could not require any person elected or appointed to be of a certain religion (including being an atheist). Bush is NOT requiring Miers to be of any Religion but religion is one of the reason he is appointing her. That is NOT a religious test as understood in 1787. As understood in 1787 what a person believed or did not believed was less important than what one church one went to. Religion and what church you go to (or not go to) are often related but are NOT the same thing. In pre-revolutionary America a Religious test was to make sure certain government position (and generally that meant all of them) went to people who went to a church tied in with the Government. While Fundamentalist are tied in with this Administration this Administration has NOT said it will only promote Fundamentalist to any and all positions, nor has Bush claim only people of certain religions apply. Thus no religious test is being imposed. If Miers should change religion while on the Supreme Court she would NOT have to resign from the Court (Another characteristics of the religious Test, was that you had to stay that religion). Miers could become an atheist (Or return to being Catholic, become a follower of Islam etc) while on the court and keep her Judgeship. The religious test is NOT a ban on considering someone's religion but that Bush can NOT forbid someone being elected or appointed because he or she is of the Wrong Religion.

I went into details for Bush is doing enough problems that we do NOT need people bring up wide-eyed concept out of parts of the Constitution that have long be understood NOT to support such concepts. The No Religious tests is just that one can NOT lose his or her job do to her or his religion but that is all, if someone decided he does not want to appoint you because you are of a particular set of belief that has always been viewed as legal under this section. Catholics were banned for decades as chaplains in the US Army for their religion (Catholics and later Jewish Rabbis were first admitted into the Service during the Civil War when it was found NOT to be effective to appoint Protestant chaplains to Irish Catholic Units). Thus the Religious test would forbid a law that says "One must be an Atheist (or a non-atheist) to be appointed to any office" but does NOT prohibit the President from considering someone's religion when making that appointment.