ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 5 of 8
< 12345 678 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Dems want to foul the House even more
HonestChieffan 09:49 AM 12-02-2018
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...m_npd_nn_fb_ma

This is nothing more than a way to divide us more



WASHINGTON — Newly empowered Democrats plan to let lawmakers wear religious head coverings on the House floor by creating an exception to a hat ban that has existed since 1837 — when there was reportedly very little debate before the enactment of a rule prohibiting what one member then described as the “really harmless but apparently indecorous practice” of indoor hat-wearing.

In recent years, the rule hasn't been enforced to preclude members, staff or religious leaders from wearing head coverings on the floor, but the victory of Minnesota Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar, a Muslim who wears a headscarf, has put a spotlight on its continued existence.

Democrats say they will add an exemption for religious headwear under their new package of rules changes for the next Congress, which begins in January, so that the protection of religious expression is explicit. The language will also cover someone wearing a head covering due to illness and loss of hair.

"Democrats know that our strength lies in our diversity, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a statement to NBC News. “After voters elected the most diverse Congress in history, clarifying the antiquated rule banning headwear will further show the remarkable progress we have made as a nation."

"This change will finally codify that no restriction may be placed on a member’s ability to do the job they were elected to do simply because of their faith," said incoming House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who is working on the amendment with Omar and Pelosi. "The American people just elected the most diverse Congress in history and our rules should embody that."

Omar applauded the plan.

"No one puts a scarf on my head but me. It’s my choice — one protected by the First Amendment," she wrote on Twitter. "And this is not the last ban I’m going to work to lift."
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 06:40 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by Chief Pagan:
Five [most likely] guys on the Supreme Court.
They don't get to decide. Not really. They get to decide if the govt has any role in deciding, which includes all of the SC justices, if they follow the Constitution.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 06:50 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by Chief Pagan:
Five [most likely] guys on the Supreme Court.
I would agree. Except it would likely be 9-0 that Islam is, in fact, a religion.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 06:54 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
I would agree. Except it would likely be 9-0 that Islam is, in fact, a religion.
They would say the state has no role in deciding if it's a religion. Otherwise, if they do as you claim, then each time a new religion appears on the scene the SC would have to determine if it's a religion. That's not right approach. It would be judicial activism.
[Reply]
banecat 06:55 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
Right wing christian terrorists have killed many many more Americans than muslims this decade.
I wouldn't call them Christian. Just like I wouldn't call ISIS Muslim. They're just using the religion. I'm not sure when they believed if any of them actually did so in the first place
[Reply]
NinerDoug 07:03 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
They would say the state has no role in deciding if it's a religion. Otherwise, if they do as you claim, then each time a new religion appears on the scene the SC would have to determine if it's a religion. That's not right approach. It would be judicial activism.
Well, there would have to be some litigation involved, obviously. Presumably, the new Congresswoman arrives for her first day in office. At some point, she ends up on the floor of the House. Nancy Pelosi then orders her to remove her scarf, based upon House rules. (Any problems with this scenario so far?)

She refuses. Nancy has her removed by the Sergeant At Arms. She sues, claiming the scarf is religious in nature, and her First Amendment Rights are being violated.

That would likely be the end of story. An injunction would issue.

If Pelosi then wanted to appeal, the outcome would be against her.

Highly unlikely that the USSC would then grant cert, but if they did, and if Pelosi's position was that "Islam is not a religion," as VP claims, the outcome would be 9-0 against her.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 07:23 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
Well, there would have to be some litigation involved, obviously.
Where did I deny that?

Originally Posted by :
Presumably, the new Congresswoman arrives for her first day in office. At some point, she ends up on the floor of the House. Nancy Pelosi then orders her to remove her scarf, based upon House rules. (Any problems with this scenario so far?)

She refuses. Nancy has her removed by the Sergeant At Arms. She sues, claiming the scarf is religious in nature, and her First Amendment Rights are being violated.

That would likely be the end of story. An injunction would issue.

If Pelosi then wanted to appeal, the outcome would be against her.

Highly unlikely that the USSC would then grant cert, but if they did, and if Pelosi's position was that "Islam is not a religion," as VP claims, the outcome would be 9-0 against her.

I wasn't speaking about that, but relying on the state via SC judges for passing judgement as to what is a religion or not. Very, very dangerous slope.

Deciding if the Congress can enforce this rule, is another case entirely. I can see them deciding if it violates the Constitution or not.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 07:29 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Where did I deny that?




I wasn't speaking about that, but relying on the state via SC judges for passing judgement as to what is a religion or not. Very, very dangerous slope.

Deciding if the Congress can enforce this rule, is another case entirely. I can see them deciding if it violates the Constitution or not.
Well, if Pelosi's defense was "the headscarf is not religious, because Islam is not a religion," that it's no different than if she was wearing a baseball cap, then the court hearing the matter would have to rule on that.
[Reply]
stevieray 07:43 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:

Or do you have nuthin' again?

:-):-):-)
nuthin' again? play that shit with your normal customers.

and no, you were putting words in my mouth. I never said that.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 07:52 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by stevieray:
nuthin' again? play that shit with your normal customers.
When someone rolls their eyes while making a personal jab or post snark, then I use it, because it shows they haven't articulated an argument. So it applied to you.

Such as:

Originally Posted by :
Originally Posted by stevieray
no, you're obtuse for the sole sake of wining an argument.

Originally Posted by :
and no, you were putting words in my mouth. I never said that.
Such as?

I have no idea what words you're referring to. I suggested something you could use legally if you wanted to stop the wearing of religious head gear in Congress because your other pithy posts indicated you didn't like my defending such practice. Perhaps, you should be clearer as to what you meant to say.
[Reply]
stevieray 08:06 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
When someone rolls their eyes while making a personal jab or post snark, then I use it, because it shows they haven't articulated an argument. So it applied to you.

Such as:





Such as?

I have no idea what words you're referring to. I suggested something you could use legally if you wanted to stop the wearing of religious head gear in Congress because your other pithy posts indicated you didn't like my defending such practice. Perhaps, you should be clearer as to what you meant to say.
^obtuse^

I said FROM the beginning it's no secret they will use the 1st amendment to bring us down...nowhere did I state that the wearing of the scarf should be stopped.

Perhaps you shouldn't presume my position.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 08:09 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by stevieray:
^obtuse^

I said FROM the beginning it's no secret they will use the 1st amendment to bring us down...nowhere did I state that the wearing of the scarf should be stopped.

Perhaps you shouldn't presume my position.
I didn't presume anything since your post shows more than implied you didn't like it. You could have been clearer. Pithy statements can lead to more than one meaning.
[Reply]
stevieray 08:13 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
I didn't presume anything since your post shows more than implied you didn't like it. You could have been clearer. Pithy statements can lead to more than one meaning.
^obtuse^

yes you did, you even gave me unwanted advice.

^ignores statement of 1st amendment twice^
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 10:08 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by banecat:
How about instead of swearing in on religious texts that not all of us agree on. And can't for whatever reason agree about even the symbolism anymore. That we start swearing in on a copy of the constitution? Hopefully we can all agree about it's importance. Maybe even for awhile it'll remind those swearing on it that are voted in of a reminded of what their job is
Completely agree. This would be a massive improvement.
[Reply]
Jim Hammer 10:21 PM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by banecat:
How about instead of swearing in on religious texts that not all of us agree on. And can't for whatever reason agree about even the symbolism anymore. That we start swearing in on a copy of the constitution? Hopefully we can all agree about it's importance. Maybe even for awhile it'll remind those swearing on it that are voted in of a reminded of what their job is
You don't have to swear on anything actually.

Originally Posted by :
Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce swore on a book of law, with the intention that they were swearing on the constitution. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_o...#Use_of_Bibles
[Reply]
Jim Hammer 10:27 PM 12-03-2018
Bonus video of Roy Moore's campaign spokesman looking stupid:

Roy Moore campaign spokesman responds with silence when asked if he knew people can be sworn in with a text other than the Christian bible pic.twitter.com/B65qIKBjlI

— The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) December 12, 2017


[Reply]
Page 5 of 8
< 12345 678 >
Up