No Catholic could be a "strict Constitutionalist" either, especially what with that niggling requirement to have allegiance to the Pope (a political figure).
But when in rome...
8/3/2011 3:40:44 AM
All the Catholics I know think the current Pope's an embarrassment at best, or a detestable figure who does incalculable harm at worst.
But then Christian evangelical fundies wouldn't know anything about ignoring the parts of your religion you disagree with. Not like there's anything in the Bible about loving thy neighbour as thyself, or giving everything you have to the poor, or...
8/3/2011 3:54:43 AM
Raised by Horses
Being "a constitutionalist" is "left-leaning" now?
8/3/2011 4:13:10 AM
Scalia's most definitely left-leaning
I suppose if you're so far to the right that you're practically sideways anyone can appear to be leaning to the left.
No Catholic could be a "strict Constitutionalist"
Actually, they can. It's called worshiping their religion on their own time while doing their job when they're at work.
especially what with that niggling requirement to have allegiance to the Pope (a political figure)
Like protestants don't listen to their preachers on political issues.
8/3/2011 5:17:10 AM
I wasn’t aware there was a ”No Popery” clause in the Constitution.
8/3/2011 5:21:20 AM
No fundie of any type could be a "strict constitutionalist" either, especially with that niggling requirement to do everything the giant man with a long white beard who lives on clouds tells them to do.
8/3/2011 5:26:08 AM
There is not, but if you consult Jefferson's letters, the founders were considering a no potpourri clause.
8/3/2011 6:36:10 AM
This person has a username from Tolkein. Tolkein was Catholic.
Do you mean literal potpourri or is this an expression?
8/3/2011 7:00:17 AM
I used to be Catholic, and I don't remember ever seeing or hearing about any requirement to have allegiance to the pope. I think someone's been reading Chick tracts. True, the pope is the leader of the church and Catholics believe he is infallible when it comes to making decisions on faith, but there's no requirement to have allegiance to him.
8/3/2011 7:02:30 AM
Where was this guy on signing statements when the king of signing statements, George W. Bush, was in office? Where do you want to bet he'll be if a Republican gets elected to the presidency? He just wants the rule to be "no signing statements by liberals who disagree with me".
8/3/2011 7:22:47 AM
Ah, a twofer. Nobody, not even Clarence Thomas, could seriously claim that Antonin Scalia is a leftist. See what happens? The man does one thing that could be construed as halfway reasonable and suddenly his former supporters practically call him the Antichrist. (To be fair, liberals do the exact same thing. It's kind of inherent in politics. Criticizing conservatives for that is like criticizing Plasmodium vivax for causing malaria. Of course, the conservatives' extreme ignorance of the political spectrum cannot be excused.) And has this fantasy nerd been reading Chick tracts lately?
8/3/2011 7:29:40 AM
And Benito Mussolini was also "definitely left-leaning," when viewed from olog-hai's vantage point.
8/3/2011 7:44:43 AM
8/3/2011 8:20:03 AM
@Raised by Horses
"Being "a constitutionalist" is "left-leaning" now?
Particularly when you consider that Scalia was appointed by the poster boy of the Religious Right, Ronnie Raygun:
Mentioned in the very first sentence, no less. Considering how - in the US Constitution - there is no religious test in running for POTUS (ergo Obama; even if he were
a 'Muslim'. QED), then it stands to fucking reason that there's even less restriction, re. religious beliefs, in becoming one of the SCOTUS; illiterate much, olog-hai? Else you would have clued up before shooting your mouth off - whilst your foot's in it.
I'm not even American (I'm British), and I
know enough of your Constitution to know that. I know what that document represents, what your country was based on, and therefore the implications for what the USA truly
represents in terms of framing human rights legislation as a whole (how it inspires all other countries' conventions & constitutions), thus I'm
more of a strict
Constitutionalist than you
are. Separation of Church and state, and all that jazz (and we Brits have a state religion - the Church of England - no less).
Would you say that White Anglo-Saxon Protestants - who are Republicans, no less - are more strict Constitutionalists than Judge Scalia? Say, for example... Judge John E. Jones III? Personally appointed to the Federal Court in 2002 by no less than George Dumbya Bush himself. He's a Conservative Christian just like you
...oh yes, that's right. Three years later, he presided over Kitzmiller vs. Dover:
And thus at a stroke, he completely destroyed the Religious Right's educational agenda, in making the teaching of 'Intelligent Design' (effectively Creationism by Stealth) in all accredited US schools not only illegal
, but unconstitutional
. In one single stroke, he did more for the cause of Atheism in the US than even we Atheists could have imagined. And we didn't have to lift a single finger to do so, such is the lack of foresight of the Religious Right destroying the Religious Right.
Like I say: Is Republican Lutheran Christian Judge Jones less of a strict Constitutionalist than Judge Scalia?
Enjoy your Catch-22, olog-hai.
I love the smell of annihilated arguments in the morning. Smells like... victory.
8/3/2011 8:22:58 AM
"Scalia's most definitely left-leaning..."
And I'm Tommy Wiseau in a glittery pink tutu & pasties!
8/3/2011 8:39:27 AM
Yesh, so following your countries laws is liberal now? Oooookaaaaay....
8/3/2011 8:42:53 AM
That's all it takes to be left-leaning in this country now? Be a strict Constitutionalists? Why don't you right wing fascists just come out and say "We hate America and the freedoms it represents. We want to destroy it and replace it with our theocratic Christian military dictatorship!"
8/3/2011 8:51:05 AM
He's about as "left-leaning" as Ronald Reagan, who appointed him. Oh and there's that old anti-Catholic "divided loyalties" thing again. Not only were there Irish Catholics among the signers of the Constitution (Carroll, Fitzsimons) but realistically, how are the teachings of the Catholic church going to conflict with the U.S. constitution? Only to the same degree as any Protestant church! I might as well claim that your allegiance to your local church as well as the constitution is a case of divided loyalties! Are the pastors and leaders of whatever church you belong to not also, in a sense, "political figures"?
8/3/2011 9:02:18 AM
Um ... weren't the Olog-hai trolls?
8/3/2011 9:34:35 AM
The Founding Fathers meant to write, "There shall be no religious test for office, except for Muslims, Jews, Catholics, atheists, and Unitarians", but they ran out of ink.
8/3/2011 10:14:00 AM
Some politicians are capable of separating their personal beliefs from their work, although it's pretty rare nowadays.
8/3/2011 10:55:17 AM
Shit son, you're right. Looks like we might have a Poe on our hands.
8/3/2011 11:20:39 AM
"Scalia's most definitely left-leaning."
Ha! Is that a joke or are you an idiot? Well, could be both, I suppose.
8/3/2011 12:09:11 PM
Republic of Ireland
8/3/2011 12:27:28 PM
that niggling requirement to have allegiance to the Pope
Wow, that tune's been on the Baptist top 20 since 1776.
Back during the Kennedy vs. Nixon campaign, they said if Kennedy won, the first thing he'd do would be to start digging a tunnel from Washington to Rome.
As it turned out, the only tunnel he dealt with was to be found between Marilyn Monroe's thighs. Not exactly on the Pope's list of Catholic duties.
8/3/2011 12:42:23 PM