Two misdemeanors, one high crime

[PDittie]

Apologies if dupe. Will Bunch:

... we feel it's our duty to report that many on the farther left have been agitating in recent days for the impeachment of President Bush, primarily on the grounds of deliberately lying to the American people about Iraq. But why stop there. Just today alone, Bush committed at least one "high crime" and two "misdemeanors," by our casual tally.

Let's review:

The act: President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

Misdemeanor No. 1: In using religion as a key basis for offering Miers a job, the president would appear to have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Title VII of the law "prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

All the rest at the link at the top.

[Lisa0825]

1. I hadn't thought of it that way!

I mean, I hated that he'd pick her based on religion, but it hadn't occurred to me that it was illegal!

Excellent point!

[WolverineDG]

2. kick &rec!

:hi: pdittie & the mrs!!

dg

[adwon]

3. No

Justices are not private or federal employees. That act doesn't apply to their selection and I would be surprised if it applied to their offices, either. After all, I believe that it still doesn't apply to Congressional offices.

This is a case of apples and oranges. While it's silly to pick justices based on religion, it is most definitely not illegal.

[PDittie]

5. So you're saying that the Constitution

doesn't apply to Supreme Court Justices?

Article VI Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

(That's the "high crime", incidentally.)

As Bunch says:

Do you honestly believe that Harriet Miers -- with all her other qualifications exactly the same -- would have been nominated to the Supreme Court if she had been Jewish, or an atheist, or Muslim?

[adwon]

6. It is it a formal requirement of the office?

If so, then it's invalid on its face. If not, then it falls under the discretion afforded to the president when it comes to carrying out constitutional duties. That is what the religious test prohibition is all about.

This is a political question, not a legal one. Framing it in terms of impeachment makes a lot more sense than in terms of violation of law, though it's unlikely to succeed regardless.

[PDittie]

7. Ah. So it depends on what the definition of the word

'test' is.

Whether impeachment can be successfully executed or not isn't really the question, though. A case for the commission of a high crime and two misdemeanors can be made, and the rest is up to the House of Representatives.

Clinton was unsuccessfully impeached, of course, by a vindictive band of Republicans.

I suppose even a ham sandwich could be impeached...:evilgrin:

[peacetalksforall]

4. Yep, agnostics, Buddhists, Taoists, Moslems would never have been,

nominated.

What to you want to bet, that they will say he meant 'religiosity' instead of 'her religion'?