« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
There goes the Supreme Court argument
Barack Obama is probably not done yet, but he has already made his contempt for the US Constitution clear enough. Not content with asserting the Unitary Executive's right to declare war without congressional approval nor with indemnifying major corporations even against investigations into political wrong-doing, Sen. Obama has not thrown out the baby, the bathwater, and the bassinette in promising to continue -- no, to <b>expand</b> -- still another Bush Administration travesty: Having the Federal government subsidize religious discrimination.
Yesterday, Sen. Obama proposed to add even more funds to Pres. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative that sends Federal funds to religious organizations that hire and fire employees based on their religious beliefs. His campaign has consulted with David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was a high-ranking official the Bush Administration's program to breach what Thomas Jefferson called "wall of separation between Church and State."
Before he won the Democratic nomination, Sen. Obama showed strong indications of conservative tendencies; but since clinching the nomination, he has sprinted over the fine line that demarks the boundary of liberalism and continues to move well into the territory where the Religious Right flourishes.
For those who were already in doubt about Sen. Obama's commitment to the Constitution, this should cement the answer. If he is elected and has the opportunity to appoint judges to the Supreme Court, we can expect more Robertses and Alitos.
Call me a radical lefty, but I've had a sufficient dose of this kind of governance for the past 26 years, thank you very much.
Comments (157)
At worst, we'd get more O'Connors and Kennedys from Obama. However, I'd expect more Ginsburgs and Stevens. To suggest Alitos and Robertses is to ignore all of the other issues that Obama disagrees with them on.
July 1, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bookmark this page.
July 1, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
For you to write that "we can expect more Robertses and Alitos" shows, yet again, that you have a conclusion you want to reach and the facts won't get in your way.
Given your deep, deep concerns about the constitution, may I recommend that you just go ahead and endorse and vote for Nader? Or perhaps Bob Barr? Here's a link to a page where Barr talks about the importance of restoring the constitution:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/
(Click on the link labeled "Individual Liberty".)
Supporting Nader or Barr would mean that when you pull bogus anti-Obama assertions out of your ass, like this one about Obama nominating Robertses and Alitos, it will be overtly concern-trollish, rather than crypto-concern-trollish. Plus, you'll feel better about yourself for supporting a candidate who shares your deep, deep concerns about the constitution.
July 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
For you to write that "we can expect more Robertses and Alitos" shows, yet again, that you have a conclusion you want to reach and the facts won't get in your way.
You tried this argument before and I destroyed it then, so I'm not going to bore you with a duplicate refutation. If you have contradictory facts, I'm very eager to examine them. If you dispute my facts, let's see yours.
The rest of your comment isn't worth my time to responnd to. Sorry.
July 1, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Contradictory facts? Your asserting something about the future as if you've made an argument for it. Ben has ripped your assertion that "we can expect more Robertses and Alitos" to shreds, but I don't expect you to admit that because it's not an assertion you reached by looking at the facts, it's an assertion you pulled out of your ass.
As for you "destroying" my arguments before, you didn't provide a link for others to go see how devastating your responses were, but I will:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/opinions-you-are-unlikely-to-a.php
What they'll find there is you engaging in the same style of argument as here, overwrought "concerns" mixed with bogus assertions you pulled straight out of your ass, quotes taken out of context, and extrapolations that don't fit the facts (much like your extrapolation here about Alitos and Robertses) and so on.
July 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep beating on that Roberts/Alito horse.
July 1, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos for retracting that part. If you could get to the point of not posting bogus assertions like that in the first place that would be real progress.
Now get on with retracting the part about a faith-based program, as Obama defined it not as Bush defined it, being unconstitutional. Or defend the claim that it is unconstitutional (a) with reference to what Obama actually said rather than a knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "faith-based program," and (b) with an argument about the constitution rather than a facile interpretation of a quote that's from Thomas Jefferson, not from the constitution.
July 1, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos for retracting that part. If you could get to the point of not posting bogus assertions like that in the first place that would be real progress.
Agreed. And if you would get to the point of posting a fact every now and then, or an argument that went beyond "You're a troll," we could have a real discussion.
July 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you would get to the point of posting a fact every now and then,
You first. All you've got so far is your usual extrapolation-out-of-your-ass (which you at least had the decency to retract this time), and sloppy hand-waving that you substitute for real argument. You quote Thomas Jefferson, not the constitution, and then make the most facile of extrapolations about what this might mean in terms of the constitutionality of Obama's proposed funding of faith-based programs. You don't even accurately state what Obama proposed to do, much less explain how, specifically, what he actually said would be in conflict with the constitution.
You're a troll, or rather you're crypto-troll trying to appear to be something that you aren't. But you don't have the literary skills needed to pull that off.
July 1, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering Obama voted against confirming Alito, I think it's safe to say he wouldn't nominate more Alitos.
He did vote to confirm Roberts, but I remind people that voting to confirm a choice someone else made is a lower standard than choosing a nominee yourself.
Is he going to only take positions you approve of on issues? Of course not. Would he be a better president than John McCain? I certainly believe so.
By all means criticize positions he takes that you disagree with, but your argument would be stronger if you weren't so alarmist, and, in the case of Alito, so obviously wrong.
July 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I was wrong to name Alito and Roberts, and I've said so about 5 times in this thread.
July 1, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's your preferred alternative to Obama, Tankard? Is it McCain? There aren't any other options.
July 1, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I do not have the power to provide you with a viable alternative, codegen. And unfortunately, neither of the major parties was able to provide you with a suitable candidate.
You, and most of those who post here, believe that "terrible" deserves your vote to prevent "atrocious," and will be forced to choose between two Conservatives. It's not your fault entirely. The Dems decided to go with a DLC strategy back in the early 1990's. It has been effective for them, if you define effectiveness purely in terms of winning while moving the party radically to the right.
Thus spoke the concern troll.
July 1, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, although most of us will argue that terrible is better than atrocious, very few feel that the comparison is relevant to Obama vs. McCain.
For me, the argument is that "good but not perfect" is better than "bad". Others might word "bad" in more extreme terms.
July 1, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll have to disagree about whether a candidate who has advocated the weakening of two articles -- so far! -- of the Bill of Rights is a good one.
July 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, it's really simple. America is going to have a new president in 2009, and it's going to be either Obama or McCain. That is the choice. That has nothing to do with you or me liking the choice.
All your assertions that Obama is a "conservative" are frankly so laughable that they do not merit a response.
July 1, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you mind if I just spend the next four months posting that statement over and over and over again? Perhaps it will sink in by November...
July 1, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, this is undoubtedly true. It is also beside the point. It does not answer the question about whether defenders of the Constitution are willing to be complicit in the act of electing a person who is willing to weaken it.
July 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
For your amusement:
http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3302/pub_detail.asp
July 1, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. It is amusing to hear Sen. Obama described as "as the most liberal of all 100 senators." Especially by a right-wing rag.
July 1, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would actually be interested in knowing the last time the right-wingers weren't calling the Democratic nominee the most liberal [something].
I suspect they even accused Bill Clinton of it. (When Hillary was the "presumptive" nominee, the accusation was being leveled against her.)
July 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! That was my point! Point thief!
July 1, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but Obama got the "most liberal" tag long before he announced he was running.
July 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would have to have been quite some time ago, because he's been running for president almost as long as he's been in the Senate.
Whenever it was, the label is risable, and the National Journal's methodology has been seriously questioned. It's ridiculous to assert that he is more liberal than Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, or Ted Kennedy. Obama is a centrist; his positions are not all that different from Hillary Clinton's.
July 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ridiculous to assert that he is more liberal than Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, or Ted Kennedy...
...or Bernie Sanders.
Right. More liberal than Feingold, Kennedy, Boxer, or Sanders. Sanders is a freaking socialist, fer Gawd's sake. Give me a freaking break. If hrebendorf buys this kind of shit... well, actually I'm not surprised.
Oh, and btw, hrebendorf, the National Journal "most liberal" ranking came out at the end of January 2008. Five days before Super Tuesday. I'm not sure, but I think Obama was running for President by then.
And guess who was ranked the "most liberal senator" according to the self-same National Journal, in 2004?
Why, John Kerry, of course.
hrebendorf, who likes to call people he disagrees with a "fucking pussy" or "typical leftie pantywaist", can blow it out his ass until he can get some basic facts straight.
July 1, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and Obama announced his run for the WH on 10 February 2007.
When was that National Journal article again? Oh, right. About 355 days later, give or take.
Next time, hrebendorf, try posting something other than fact-free invective, ad hominems, and potty mouth.
July 2, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blow me, shithead.
July 2, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the words of David Letterman, sometimes these jokes just write themselves.
July 2, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be my guest, killer bunny :)
July 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet you did respond, and I thank you for doing so, and for chiding me on what was probably a misrepresentation. I agree that your candidate is not a conservative, and I agree with Ben that I overstated things when I predicted that he would appoint another Alito.
Still, his pattern of promoting policies that undermine the Constitution makes him unacceptable to me in that I am a person who believes that that document is all that stands between us and authoritarian rule.
July 1, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two somewhat separate aspects to this: where we are, and where we want to be.
The road is long. The fork we're at today has two signs, Obama and McCain. Today, we have to decide which path to take, which one is more likely to the ultimate goal. Tomorrow, we can think about how to best plot the course for the future.
July 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
To extend your metaphor, we are unlikely to select the correct direction if we discard the roadmap. The Founding Fathers provided one and called it the Constitution of the United States of America. It has provided our nation, in fact the world, with a pretty damn good guide for more than 200 years. Coming off the past 26 years, I think that this is a lousy time to toss it out the window -- or even to fold it up and put it in the glove box with a promise to look at it again later.
July 1, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to hear it. (I admire those who can admit when they overstate things. We all do it from time to time.)
Now, upon reflection, do you think that Obama's candidates would most likely have more respect for the constitution than McCain's? (Think back to their respective positions on habeas corpus.)
July 1, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, upon reflection, do you think that Obama's candidates would most likely have more respect for the constitution than McCain's?
No reflection required, now, before, or ever. Of course. His appointees would have respect for, and interpret the Constitution as Sen. Obama does. That's my problem, and I suspect that it is yours, too.
July 1, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the article I cited in another comment:
Any time I read a winger going apoplectic over my preferred candidate, it makes me happy. Really, really, really happy.
The link again, in case you missed it:
http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3302/pub_detail.asp
July 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attribution for this claim?
Any background on the legislation? Does it also support faith-based efforts that are hugely successful such as feeding the homeless, caring for AIDS/HIV patients and teaching illiterate Americans how to read?
Even one link to back-up your opinion would allow for a more reasoned discussion. As it is, blogs like this don't really offer anything other than tired talking points.
Our fanatics are as bad as theirs.
July 1, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Jason. It's probably just because I'm a fanatic about civil liberties, but I thought everyone already knew about this. Anyway, here's your link.
I don't mind your calling me a fanatic about the Constitution. I'm proud of it, actually. But I need to ask you again: If a fanatic presents a fact, does that make it a lie?
Tired talking points? I have no need. Sen. Obama keeps supplying me with fresh ones.
July 1, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/there-goes-the-supreme-court-a.php#comment-2940829
May I rest my case?
July 1, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only may you. You should. Or make a coherent argument.
July 1, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really aren't getting this, are you? You posted a link to an article. Then, when I quoted from the very same article you posted a link to, you claimed that you hadn't read the article. That you posted a link to. Speaking of coherent arguments.
July 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that you have made yourself clear, I can do the same: You are mistaken. Again.
July 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No freakin' shit. My grandma used to call this type "bellyachers". The kind you abandon at a rest stop when you're on a long road trip.
July 1, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's note that there has been precious little contradiction to my post so far, just complaints about my interpretation of Obama's positions. If you have a different interpretation, let's hear it and debate.
Or we could just keep calling each other names. That's fun too.
July 1, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I thought you were sort of shooting for a rancorous discussion. My bad. You start off with the statement: "Barack Obama is probably not done yet, but he has already made his contempt for the US Constitution clear enough," and you think that's going to lead in a productive direction?
I can't tell if you're concern trolling or if you're seriously overwrought. It just seems to me that the venting and the deep expressions of disappointment have gone on quite long enough. Isn't it time to quit complaining about OUR shitty candidate and start complaining about theirs? Barack Obama is not perfect. Tough shit for us. Better luck next time. Deal.
July 1, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't tell if you're concern trolling or if you're seriously overwrought.
A fact is a fact and an argument is an argument regardless of who points it out and regardless of his or her emotional condition. What is it with these ad hominem arguments coming from self-styled progressives? Isn't that supposed to be a neocon tactic?
And no, I am not calling you a neocon, I am comparing your behavior to theirs.
July 1, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, what exactly, did he call you? I missed that part.
July 1, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surely you can read. He wondered whether I was a troll or suffering from (perhaps temporary) mental instability. Do you have another way to interpret the sentence I quoted?
July 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You distinguish attacks on behavior from attacks on a person. He did not accuse you of being a troll, but of (possibly) trolling. You did not accuse him of being a neocon, but of using neocon tactics.
Being overwrought does not imply a mental instability. It could easily be a temporary condition. I am overwrought from time to time. I like to think I'm not mentally unstable, although I'm sure there are those that'd argue the point.
July 1, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you used hrebendorf's icon or used smorg's name, I might accuse you of splitting hares.
July 1, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
A point for good humor, but I'll have to point out that you were the one who split the hare, I was merely the one serving hassenpfeffer.
July 1, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm lapin it up.
July 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understood that. But neocons behave in many different ways and so do liberals. Liberal or conservative, attempting to tar a person on the basis of a single article (and a fairly misleading article, I might add) is not what I'd call honest. Not dishonest, necessarily--just not honest. From the article:
The article is a good example of a technique I like to call "gregsargentism". You put up a provocative headline to grab readers, misstate the positions of the subject of the article to provoke readers, and then indemnify yourself to charges of disingenuousness by burying the truth somewhere in the article. The fact is, if you ignore the conjecture and the innuendo and look for the facts, there's nothing terribly interesting in the article. Except that Obama is courting evangelicals, and one prominent evangelical called it a "massive deal". And it is a massive deal. If the Democrats could wrestle the faith issue away from conservatives, that would change the electoral math in amazing ways.
July 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't read that article, but there are plenty of reliable sources that show that Obama supports allowing organizations that hire and fire on the basis of religion to receive Federal funds. I see this as a violation of the First Amendment, and so far, no one in this thread has even attempted to argue that it's not.
July 1, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently not. You were, however, kind enough to provide a link to it, and (I'm assuming) use it as the basis for this post.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/there-goes-the-supreme-court-a.php#comment-2940409
Weird, huh?
July 1, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
July 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get it yet? The quote I provided was from the article that you posted a link to. And then claimed you hadn't read. Huh? Yeah, huh.
July 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
By now, you must be really tired of being wrong, so I won't point it out again.
July 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that this was an unfortunate policy decision that Obama made. However, to jump from there to Alitos and Robertses is a claim not based on facts.
3, 5, and 7 are prime. Therefore all odd numbers are prime.
That's how your claim reads to me. I do not dispute, however, that 3, 5, and 7 are prime.
July 1, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO BEN! THE WHOLE THING'S GOING TO HELL! THEY'RE ALL PRIME NUMBERS NOW!!! CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING!!! IF WE ALLOW ONE, WE GET THEM ALL!!! WE MUST NIP THIS IN THE BUD!!! THIS IS HORRIBLE!!! WE HAVE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE!!! OBAMA IS SATAN!!!
July 1, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
3, 5, and 7 are prime. Therefore all odd numbers are prime. That's how your claim reads to me.
Why limit the argument to odd numbers? Why not ALL numbers?
But it's easy to dispell your argument simply by looking at the next odd number. Unfortunately, each new Obama statement of policy that has a direct bearing on Constitutional issues confirms rather than refutes my contention that his attitude about it is rather cavalier. Nothing wrong with pragmatism, but it has to be bounded by principles. It would be too strong to say that I think Obama's principles are anti-Constitutional, but his willingness to bend it to his will disturbs me.
July 1, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing to me how a teacher of Constitutional law and a guy who has been called the "most liberal member of Congress" has suddenly morphed into this conservative prick who's probably a more strict constructionist than McCain. Either Obama has been playing politics for the last 20 or so years of his life, or he's been playing politics for the past several weeks. I wonder which it is...?
July 1, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Either Obama has been playing politics for the last 20 or so years of his life, or he's been playing politics for the past several weeks.
Robert Heinlein said that all politicians are "bought." An honest politician is one that stays bought.
I'm not accusing him of anything dishonest. I'm "accusing" him of having an attitude about the Constitution that I find unacceptable. In more and more ways every week.
July 1, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, your choice is between him and McCain. One of them will be sworn into office in January. So I'd suggest picking a side and then cutting back a bit on the hand-wringing.
July 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have chosen a side. Madison's.
July 1, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two words: habeas corpus
July 1, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another good point on your side.
July 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
My grandma used to call this type "bellyachers".
Really, hr? Not ?
You're slipping, hr.
July 1, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it also support faith-based efforts that are hugely successful such as feeding the homeless, caring for AIDS/HIV patients and teaching illiterate Americans how to read?
Are you suggesting that the best way to accomplish these goals is to feed Federal money to organizations that fire people for being, say, Jewish? Or atheist? Or who are known to withhold services from people who refuse to be prostelityzed? If you are, I must disagree.
But even if you are correct, there's this little scrap of paper, less and less important as time goes on, that we laughingly refer to as the Constitution. It forbids this kind of behavior by the Executive in the First Amendment.
July 1, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am suggesting that those programs do a lot of good. That there are complexities to the issue that your fanaticism doesn't address. I have been involved with the programs he is talking about.
Beyond the question of why a Jew wouldn't support those same efforts via his synagogue, is the fact that the Constitution doesn't prohibit government from getting involved with religion in general. Only with establishing one specific religion. That is a point I don't think you consider in making your argument.
You are also seem to be missing some important historical details when it comes to the Constitution and the men who wrote it. One of the most influential and prolific of Constitutional authors, Thomas Jefferson, most certainly disagreed with you.
All I am suggesting is that you use a deeper, more nuanced exploration of the Constitution rather than setting up these straw-men to be knocked down. I am also suggesting that the Constitution as written and amended is hardly good enough to account for our extremely complex and diverse society.
Until we are done with the partisan bickering and can bring together a governing majority to face our problems (one that include republicans by the way) we will never be successful in addressing the deficiencies in the Constitution, much less our enormous environmental and institutional weaknesses.
Don't think these issues a little bigger than your narrow view allows?
July 1, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am suggesting that those programs do a lot of good.
No argument from me about that. But are you saying this stuff couldn't happen without weakening the Constitution? If so, we need an amendment.
Further, it the Bush Administration has argued that other violations of the Constitution are needed to keep us safe, so effectiveness is not a good argument for illegality. Risking the prospect of having Godwin's Law brought down on me like lightning from the sky: Hitler made the the trains run on time.
July 1, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing in the First Amendment makes these programs illegal, so you are once again offering solutions to problems that don't exist.
July 2, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where in the article you cited does anyone from the Obama camp advocate such a thing?
July 1, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am so very, very glad you are not one of Obama's strategists. Of course if you had been, you would have been out of work 17 months ago.
July 1, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am so very, very glad you are not one of Obama's strategists. Of course if you had been, you would have been out of work 17 months ago.
Undoubtedly. And I'm sure this latest lurch to the right will attract more of the Christian Right 23-Percenters to Obama than it will alienate ACLUers such as me. But I'm gone as an Obama supporter. Check one Western Pennsylvanian off the Obama volunteer list.
July 1, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama knew he'd lose a few supporters when he shifted into general election mode. It's a gamble well worth taking, in my opinion. It's my guess you had an unrealistic opinion of the guy from the beginning. Ask yourself: how was he supposed to address your fantasies about him? He's been trying to warn you all along. Did you think he was kidding when he said that he was an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams? You're not getting the present you wanted this Christmas. Tough shit for you. Maybe if you whine about it until next Christmas, things will work out better next year. On the other hand, you could reexamine your own expectations and maybe NOT whine instead. Your choice, of course.
July 1, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tough shit for you.
Tough shit for all of us. Including your kids.
July 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has always been a pragmatist. I always laugh when some republican blowhard calls Obama a "liberal". He is not and never has been.
By the way, if facts matter to your argument, Obama is for releasing federal funds for Faith Based groups that are doing good works but are not proselytizing. He also favors that these groups have the right to hire or fire based on their values.
This may seem paradoxical to some, but it seems down right pragmatic to me, and absolutely constitutional. Get aid to people who need it by the people who are there, while at the same time allowing these groups the right to "free association".
July 1, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh the Horror. Man the blogs are on fire about this one today. All because Obama supposedly said that he would permit faith based groups to consider religion when hiring.
Lets deal with the hiring first. Whether Obama say it's OK or not to consider religion when hiring it happens. Let's say two candidates show up for a job with a faith based org, lets call it a Jewish program, for the sake of argument. Now lets say one candidate is Jewish and one is Catholic. My sense is they are going to hire the Jewish candidate over the Catholic one. For the simple reason the Jewish candidate is going to have a better understanding of the mission based on the Jewish religion.
Next,
Finally where Obama differs from Bush-
"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.
Like it or not there is a lot of truth to this. The government in IMO has a very poor track record and being an effective advocate or provider for the poor, the sick and those less fortunate.
July 1, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ding, ding, ding. "Now on to the bonus round. The million dollar question is: Are these programs effective? Think carefully now."
"Um, I guess so."
"That is correct! They offer services that government has been scaling back on for years and they do it better because they are local! We should support those efforts and those of traditional non-profits as well! You win the big prize!"
July 1, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me, the most important question is whether the Feds should fund religious discrimination. It seems to me that a religious organization should be permitted to hire and fire based on its beliefs, OR receive Federal funds. Not both. Simple.
Barack Obama's campaign has proposed both. Simple.
July 1, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great. Then you and Obama agree. No problem. From the article you linked to:
July 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we do not agree. Read before you foam, please.
July 1, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is running to become President of the United States not of the Partial Left and Some in the Middle. Not all religious individuals are necessarily conservative anti-civil liberty fanatics.
The employment point was qualified by anonymous senior adviser
He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxpayer funded portions of their activities
As far as Supreme Court picks, he voted against Roberts. The selection a Supreme Court justice is a moving target at best.
July 1, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about him voting against Roberts, but who can say whether that was motivated by conscience or politics? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt there without dismissing the doubt entirely.
He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxpayer funded portions of their activities
Come on. When any organization receives funds to accomplish mission A, it frees up funds that can be transferred to mission B. It's disingenuous to suggest such a bifurcation of the organization's funds. They know that.
July 1, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question for you: where do you think O'Connor and Kennedy stand on faith-based initiatives?
Kennedy, at least, is on record in this regard. I'm not sure about O'Connor. Don't get me wrong: I don't want Kennedys and O'Connors. I want Ginsburgs and Souters. I expect Gingsburgs and Souters. However, if we're going to litmus on a single issue, it's telling that you went to Roberts and Alito instead of O'Connor and Kennedy.
July 1, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea where either of them stands on FBIs, but I can tell you this: If not for O'Connor, we would now be mourning the end of the second term of Al Gore.
I can also tell you that she was appointed by the Gipper.
These points tell me all I need to know about her.
July 1, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's not who I'd hold up as my ideal candidate (I think I made that clear in my very first post), but she's a far cry from Alito and Roberts. (I was making this point prior to you backing off of the Alito/Roberts claim, or at least prior to me being aware you had.)
July 1, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead. Rub it in.
I guess I would agreed that it is better to have a SC Justice appointed by a Altzheimer victim than by a megalomaniac.
July 1, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't decide if it's tragic or comic that you were forced to state something so obvious. Probably a little of both. :)
July 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably both so are some of these posts.
Here kitty, kitty...
I think you want to sit on the Don's lap?
July 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
See that little blob of schmutz on your trousers? That's my very best hairball. Ever.
July 1, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bad Kitty!
July 1, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's note that there has been precious little contradiction to my post so far,
It's hard to disprove assertions you pull out of your ass, like your assertion that we should expect Obama to nominate Alitos and Robertses.
July 1, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, those sorts of assertions should be the easiest to disprove.
But you are right that I over-reached with that assertion. My apologies for having caused any inconvenience with that "over-wrought" statement. Void where prohibited. Your mileage may vary.
July 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Tankard, you have my sympathies on this one. I don't really like the idea of Federal funds going to faith-based programs. But, looking at Obama's speech on the topic that's to be delivered today in OH, I don't see any particular Constitutional problem:
You can argue that there may be some slippery slope potential there, but...mmmmm...don't see any blatant disregard for the Constitution.
July 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sending taxpayer money to organizations that discriminate with regard to religion is (clearly, to me) an establishment of religion.
The First Amendment calls that a no-no.
July 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The religion was already established before the government got involved. Also, they are not supporting "religious" activities.
Your myopic view of the Constitution is why progressives rarely get anything done in this country. There is always more than one "right" answer with regards to Constitutional questions, that is the basis of all our institutions.
There is a reason the Supreme Court is still ruling on what the Second Amendment means more than 200 year after it was written.
July 2, 2008 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It must be shocking to you to discover that Sen. Obama disagrees with you and agrees with me about this issue, especially considering that he is, as your side of this argument points out with annoying frequency, a Constitutional scholar.
July 2, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
On what issue? You are against the faith-based initiatives and think they violate the Constitution. You make no sense sometimes.
PS: I rarely point out that he knows way more about the Constitution than you or I. I don't have to because my rudimentary knowledge of the Constitutional law is more than enough to debate your anemic views on these issues.
July 2, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you feel the need to demean those with whom you disagree?
July 2, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sending taxpayer money to organizations that discriminate with regard to religion is (clearly, to me) an establishment of religion.
The First Amendment calls that a no-no.
July 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shocked.
Tankard had to be one of the more rabid Pro-Obama peeps on the board.
I've never been that crazy about Obama,(or any of 'em) but I never wouldn't vote for him. The alternative is horrid. I knew Obama wasn't really a leftie, but who was?
The perfect is the enemy of the good, tank.
Truly.
July 1, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! That's my quote to throw around! (I'm not sure why I failed to do so here.)
And you're right about the rec. I finally did.
July 1, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF are you?
BenVoltaireHocking? Fine.
July 1, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's more like it!
July 1, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard had to be one of the more rabid Pro-Obama peeps on the board.
That is not true. You only thought I was rabidly for Obama because you were rabidly pro-Clinton and I promised not to vote for her.
You could look it up.
But you won't.
July 1, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, bee was pro-Edwards. I'm not sure that she ever chose a side between Obama and Clinton.
July 1, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn it! Stop being accurate! I hereby apologize to workerbee for calling her pro-Clinton. You remind me (as she did then) that the topic of discussion was not the virtue of Sen. Clinton, but the question of my masculinity (or femininity, depending on my gender), patriotism, altruism, and sanity if I refused to vote for her in November.
Sorry for being wrong again.
But the original point hasn't changed.
July 1, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
70 comments and 3 recs, that's lame peoples.
This is an interesting discussion, rec it up.
July 1, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
got a link to a source, tankard?
i'm itching to read it.
this is the kind of thing we should be emailing the obama campaign about, and asking whether this business about him supporting FBI's is true.
they are patently against the spirit of this nation. church and state are separate; many thousands have died in the fight to keep them that way.
$16 billion, never approved by Congress, appropriated by the President for his FBI's. unprecedented, because it was wrong.
that said, no one else to vote for, man. it's like the debate between gore and nader in 2000. no spoilers this year, please.
July 1, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
n/m, i just read jsfox's post over here that kind of explains how Obama feels about FBI's with respect to Title VII and other federal anti-discrimination policies.
July 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read before you foam, please. From the Associated Press:
Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.
July 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is your point? You're having an argument with yourself. What, exactly, are you trying to say? Now you're quoting from exactly the same article you claim not to have read. Citing the same quote I already provided. What IS your point? Is this your version of throwing a handful of dirt in the air and running like hell? Your own personal "splunge" gambit?
July 1, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's try for a modicum of accuracy, if it's not asking too much.
July 1, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, that's good. The old "I think what I meant to say should have been obvious" ploy.
July 1, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, you seem to be laboring under a delusion.
July 1, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, specifically, is the delusion? See, you think you're arguing with me, but now you're just making yourself look foolish. When you're in a hole, it's best to just quit digging.
July 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if anyone should know about making oneself look foolish...
July 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is, we totally agree:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/the-real-barack-obamaunmasking.php
July 1, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is, no we don't.
July 1, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're just being a big baby.
July 1, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you are, but what am I?
July 1, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard, I'm not the one who posted the hysterical nonesense about Obama appointing Supreme Court justices like Roberts and Alito. Were you unaware that Obama voted against both of those nominations and voted against cloture on the filibuster of Alito's appointment?
You've been hitting me with these personal attacks, but you've done little to support the main point of your post. And when I pointed out that the article you cited was misleading, you said "I didn't read that article, but there are plenty of reliable sources that show that Obama supports allowing organizations that hire and fire on the basis of religion to receive Federal funds. I see this as a violation of the First Amendment, and so far, no one in this thread has even attempted to argue that it's not."
Why would you say that you hadn't read the article? Were you lying when you said that? Or had you really not read the article that you posted a link to? I'm not getting why you're being so freaking stubborn about this. You fucked up. Just drop it. I'm not the one who put up this stupid, poorly-considered post.
July 1, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please point to one of these personal attacks.
Then answer my question below, where I make still another attempt to drag this argument out of the mire.
July 1, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question below answered. Hopefully out of the mire.
July 1, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But seriously--what is your point? You're not answering the question. You're just trying to evade it. What IS your point? What are you trying to say?
Predicted response: something along the lines of "I don't have time to argue with idiots like you."
But seriously--what IS your point?
July 1, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My impression is that you are far more interested in labeling your opponents (for example, your bizarre behavior WRT Billy Glad) than arriving at an agreement, but let's find out. I'll take this one yes or no question at a time. If you think one of my questions is unfair, say so, re-state the question, and answer it.
First question for you: If an organization bases its hiring and firing practices on the religion of its employees and potential employees, is it engaging in religious discrimination?
July 1, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I get it. You're still upset about the Billy Glad thing. You didn't see my apology, but I did apologize and I did promise it wouldn't happen again. Billy seriously had it coming. Just not on your thread. My apologies.
As to whether basing hiring and firing practices is a form of religious discrimination, I'd say yes. But what I think personally, and what the Constitution and the Supreme Court say are two different things. A Christian church, for instance, has the absolute right to not hire a Buddhist or an atheist as a minister. The Supreme Court ruled, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, that the Boy Scouts had the right to refuse to allow homosexuals to be scout leaders. Do you agree with that? Because your First Amendment rights hinge on their decision.
You want this to be easy and clear-cut, I think. But that's not the case much of the time.
Did I answer the question?
July 1, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I answer the question?
You did. Thank you. You agreed that basing its hiring and firing practices on the faith of its employees is religious discrimination.
You also made valid arguments about where religious discrimination is not only legal, but obviously the only sensible practice. I'll continue with my line of questions based on that.
Should taxpayers' money be used to hire Christian ministers? If not, why not?
July 1, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I didn't agree that basing hiring and firing practices on faith is discrimination. I said that I personally thought it was. As far as the legality of it, I haven't studied the question carefully enough so I can't say whether it's considered discriminatory or not as far as the law is concerned. I know the First Amendment provides broad protections for churches.
No, taxpayers' money should not be used to hire Christian ministers. Neither should taxpayers' money be used to print money that says "In God We Trust" on it. Nor should the government be involved in performing marriages. All for the same reason: separation of church and state, as provided for under the First Amendment.
I'll be interested to see where you're going with this...
July 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'm going to ignore all the red herrings and just ask it this way:
Would it be Constitutional for the government to give money to churches to hire ministers?
July 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It would, in fact, be unconstitutional. Wow, I'm totally at a loss as to where this is going.
July 1, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be unconstitutional because it is an "establishment of religion," right? It would mean that the government was favoring that church with taxpayer money. Am I right?
July 1, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind. The Obama campaign took my advice and reversed itself. No money would go to organizations that discriminate in their personnel policies.
If there were a god, I would thank it.
July 1, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see that statement as a reversal. It's a clarification. They're not saying that they've changed their minds about this. They're saying that the AP report was wrong.
July 1, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it would be unconstitutional because it would violate the separation of church and state. There's a big difference there. The government is not restricted from giving grants to religious entities. They just can't be discriminatory in their consideration of who receives the money. They can't give money to Christian churches and deny money to Muslims or Buddhists or whatever. If there's a faith-based grant available, it must be available to ALL religious organizations.
July 1, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, I'm not in the least "upset about the Billy Glad thing." I thought it was disturbingly hilarious, but it did your credibility as a thinking person absolutely no good whatsoever, IMNSHO.
July 1, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
My credibility as a thinking person is not something I waste a lot of energy worrying about. If Billy Glad and I had been in a bar, I would have socked him a good one. Far more efficient.
July 1, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
My credibility as a thinking person is not something I waste a lot of energy worrying about.
Prudent, in that the remainder of your comment ALSO does little in that regard.
July 1, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, that's between me and Billy Glad.
July 1, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard, I'm moving this to the left because it was getting "skinny" and I thought it was interesting enough to make another comment.
Obama knows that the question of hiring and firing has already been settled. Religious organizations have the right to hire and fire as they please. So for him to say that he doesn't support discriminatory practices is a no-brainer. Essentially, the law says that churches have the right to discriminate based on religion, BECAUSE the State doesn't have the right to regulate religious organizations or interfere in their affairs. That's well established. So what Obama said today is essentially meaningless. He's a constitutional scholar, fully qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. He knows the law.
July 1, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarify it does:
First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion.
That would make me, what? Right? Right! According to a Constitutional scholar.
July 1, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as Obama is concerned you're right. As far as I'm concerned you're right. As far as the law is concerned...? Well, that's not so simple.
July 1, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So...it isn't enough that religion is allowed to market their fantasies at a tax-free price to their customers but, Oabama supports giving these enterprises cash on top of it? Even the oil companies don't have it that good.
Fucking corporate wellfare!
July 1, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happen to agree with you about this, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
July 1, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
tankard rocks!
and is very patient
July 1, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We rocks can be exceptionally patient, 'cause we're all stoned! Get it? Rock...stoned?
July 1, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
has anyone already said this: What going to war without congressional approval?
He didn't even vote for the fucking AUMF that started the whole FISA mess in the first place.
And no one is indemnifying anyone at this point,there hasn't been any vote. It's not a law. And even it was, in legal and constitutional terms, national security does trump telecoms being immune from civil suit.
Try to do a little looking into something once in awhile instead of parroting the bullshit of other people who similarly are clueless about this whole thing.
July 1, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for stopping by to inject a note of class and grace to the discussion, Tena.
However, I'm afraid that if you don't know about Sen. Obama's proposal to invade Pakistan, then I am not the one who needs to "do a little looking into something" nor the one who needs to concern myself with bullshit or cluelessness.
July 1, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU don't know about Senator Obama's proposal to invade Pakistan because HE NEVER PROPOSED IT. Just when I was starting to think you were better than an imbecile.
Are you seriously intent on advertising just how ill-informed and careless with the facts you are?
Please cite Senator Obama's proposal to "invade" Pakistan. And don't you DARE try to use his statement about taking out high value targets. Not until you've looked up the meaning of the word "invasion" in whatever crappy dictionary you happen to use.
July 1, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh...sorry, can't help you. I'm an imbecile and and a clueless dickwad.
But I do appreciate your employing so much of your intellect to debate me. You have a real talent for turning a phrase, and the humor in your post on this topic was impeccable.
It almost made me forget that I was the one who agreed with Obama.
July 1, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, congratulations. It's pretty rare that I see anyone get that sort of reaction from Tena. You've gotta be a pretty clueless dickwad to get that sort of reaction from our dear Tena.
July 1, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate everything everyone has said, and recognize that we have a choice between a less than perfect Obama and a miserable McCain, but if we give our votes to Obama because he is better than miserable although he doesn't give a hoot about the Constitution, what lesson do we teach? Isn't it that Dem candidates don't have to stand up for Dem values, or progressive values, or the Constitution, because however right of center the Dem positions may be, they are bound to be left of the Repug positions? If Obama is elected, he will want to be elected again, and if he knows we don't care what he does, won't he appoint Supremes who are as far right as he thinks the Senate will go for?
July 1, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
if we give our votes to Obama because he is better than miserable although he doesn't give a hoot about the Constitution, what lesson do we teach? Isn't it that Dem candidates don't have to stand up for Dem values, or progressive values, or the Constitution, because however right of center the Dem positions may be, they are bound to be left of the Repug positions?
That's exactly what we'll be teaching, and what we HAVE been teaching. Moreover, the Republican wing of the Democratic party has been counting on us falling into line and voting for (and otherwise supporting) Their Guy because The Other Guy Is Worse.
Eventually, there has to be a price.
July 1, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're giving the religious Right credit as being the only type of Christians or religious people there are in this country. Christians don't all fit nicely into one little basket. No need to panic at the word religion or faith.
You need to read the post by jsfox today at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/hew-and-cry-over-obamas-faith.php
July 1, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christians don't all fit nicely into one little basket.
1 -- Another proof that there is no god.
2 -- True. If you put them that close together, they'd kill each other.
3 -- But if they did, we could give 'em all back to the Easter Bunny.
4 -- If somebody stuck you in a little basket, you wouldn't behave nicely either.
Just kiddin'. You kind of have to be an atheist to appreciate this humor. On second thought, that doesn't help much, either. But it is offensive, and that's the whole point, isn't it?
July 3, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know much about David Kuo, but what I've read would lead me to want to consult with him, too:
Why a Christian in the White House Felt Betrayed
by David Kuo
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546580,00.html
Go figure, Obama likes consulting with people who bring top-level experience to the discussion.
July 2, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment