Republicans in the third-most-populous county in Texas voted overwhelmingly against the removal of one of their party leaders from his post on Thursday.

The vote was not over qualifications or any misdeed by the party leader, Shahid Shafi, a surgeon and longtime Republican who was appointed vice chairman of the Tarrant County Republican Party six months ago.

It was over whether Dr. Shafi’s Muslim faith disqualified him from the job. The vote — and the bitter clashes leading up to it — came as Democrats have been heralding the arrival of the first two Muslim women in Congress last week.

“Religious liberty won tonight,” Darl Easton, the Republican Party’s county chairman, said after Dr. Shafi was supported, 139 to 49, in Thursday’s vote. “And while that makes a great day for the Republican Party of Tarrant County, that victory also serves notice that we have much work to do unifying our party.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...hid-shafi-texas.html

3 days ago

"Verbal Lynching is the political tool used today by dems to silence debate on critical issues."

Original Post
L. Cranston posted:

Some Republicans tried to remove an official because of his Religion and couldn't muster the votes. Then there's that pesky Constitution Republicans love to scream about, when it suits them.

Blah, blah blah. Caught. Three days ago and the vote was 139 to 49. Want to talk about the dems going after a man because he is Catholic??? Hmmmm?

 

One way to understand the Democratic opposition to the judicial nomination of Brian Buescher over his membership in the Catholic group the Knights of Columbus is as a test run in preventing their worst nightmare: the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Democratic senators Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) targeted Buescher during his confirmation hearing and in written questions late last year, suggesting that his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all. Hirono went so far as to demand that he drop his membership and recuse himself from any case on which the organization has taken a position.

Jutu posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Some Republicans tried to remove an official because of his Religion and couldn't muster the votes. Then there's that pesky Constitution Republicans love to scream about, when it suits them.

Blah, blah blah. Caught. Three days ago and the vote was 139 to 49. Want to talk about the dems going after a man because he is Catholic??? Hmmmm?

Sure. Where's your proof? You do remember Democrats elected JFK, right?

Jutu posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Some Republicans tried to remove an official because of his Religion and couldn't muster the votes. Then there's that pesky Constitution Republicans love to scream about, when it suits them.

Blah, blah blah. Caught. Three days ago and the vote was 139 to 49. Want to talk about the dems going after a man because he is Catholic??? Hmmmm?

 

One way to understand the Democratic opposition to the judicial nomination of Brian Buescher over his membership in the Catholic group the Knights of Columbus is as a test run in preventing their worst nightmare: the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Democratic senators Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) targeted Buescher during his confirmation hearing and in written questions late last year, suggesting that his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all. Hirono went so far as to demand that he drop his membership and recuse himself from any case on which the organization has taken a position.

You do a great job of taking an article and missing the entire point, don't you? I believe their concern is over Buescher's ability to rule over existing laws without his religious convictions. So much for your claims of 'because he's a Catholic.'

Oh wait. They have a problem because he is a Catholic, yet no one should question a Muslim??? And, you think that makes sense? And, if it's not about his being a Catholic, what is it exactly?? I didn't miss the point at all and you're floundering in your own mess.

Jutu posted:

Oh wait. They have a problem because he is a Catholic, yet no one should question a Muslim??? And, you think that makes sense? And, if it's not about his being a Catholic, what is it exactly?? I didn't miss the point at all and you're floundering in your own mess.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

From basically "nobodies" in the R party.

"We don’t think he’s suitable as a practicing Muslim to be vice chair because he’d be the representative for ALL Republicans in Tarrant County, and not ALL Republicans in Tarrant County think Islam is safe or acceptable in the U.S., in Tarrant County, and in the TCGOP," O'Brien wrote on Facebook. "There are big questions surrounding exactly where Dr. Shafi’s loyalties lie, vis a vis Democrat and Republican policies."

************************************

From two Democratic US senators.

Democratic senators Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) targeted Buescher during his confirmation hearing and in written questions late last year, suggesting that his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all. Hirono went so far as to demand that he drop his membership and recuse himself from any case on which the organization has taken a position.

 

 

Jutu posted:

From basically "nobodies" in the R party.

"We don’t think he’s suitable as a practicing Muslim to be vice chair because he’d be the representative for ALL Republicans in Tarrant County, and not ALL Republicans in Tarrant County think Islam is safe or acceptable in the U.S., in Tarrant County, and in the TCGOP," O'Brien wrote on Facebook. "There are big questions surrounding exactly where Dr. Shafi’s loyalties lie, vis a vis Democrat and Republican policies."

************************************

From two Democratic US senators.

Democratic senators Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) targeted Buescher during his confirmation hearing and in written questions late last year, suggesting that his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all. Hirono went so far as to demand that he drop his membership and recuse himself from any case on which the organization has taken a position.

 

 

Again, the point is his religious beliefs would be a deterrent to him having a fair stance on current law. What's so hard for you to understand?

L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:

From basically "nobodies" in the R party.

"We don’t think he’s suitable as a practicing Muslim to be vice chair because he’d be the representative for ALL Republicans in Tarrant County, and not ALL Republicans in Tarrant County think Islam is safe or acceptable in the U.S., in Tarrant County, and in the TCGOP," O'Brien wrote on Facebook. "There are big questions surrounding exactly where Dr. Shafi’s loyalties lie, vis a vis Democrat and Republican policies."

************************************

From two Democratic US senators.

Democratic senators Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) targeted Buescher during his confirmation hearing and in written questions late last year, suggesting that his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all. Hirono went so far as to demand that he drop his membership and recuse himself from any case on which the organization has taken a position.

 

 

Again, the point is his religious beliefs would be a deterrent to him having a fair stance on current law. What's so hard for you to understand?

Again, the point is his religious beliefs would be a deterrent to him having a fair stance on current law. What's so hard for you to understand?

 

Yes Crash, why is it so hard for you to understand that is EXACTLY the point your two senators are making? They said it clearly.

"his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all".

 

"his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all".

 

 "not ALL Republicans in Tarrant County think Islam is safe or acceptable in the U.S., in Tarrant County, and in the TCGOP".

Jutu posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:

From basically "nobodies" in the R party.

"We don’t think he’s suitable as a practicing Muslim to be vice chair because he’d be the representative for ALL Republicans in Tarrant County, and not ALL Republicans in Tarrant County think Islam is safe or acceptable in the U.S., in Tarrant County, and in the TCGOP," O'Brien wrote on Facebook. "There are big questions surrounding exactly where Dr. Shafi’s loyalties lie, vis a vis Democrat and Republican policies."

************************************

From two Democratic US senators.

Democratic senators Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) targeted Buescher during his confirmation hearing and in written questions late last year, suggesting that his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all. Hirono went so far as to demand that he drop his membership and recuse himself from any case on which the organization has taken a position.

 

 

Again, the point is his religious beliefs would be a deterrent to him having a fair stance on current law. What's so hard for you to understand?

Again, the point is his religious beliefs would be a deterrent to him having a fair stance on current law. What's so hard for you to understand?

 

Yes Crash, why is it so hard for you to understand that is EXACTLY the point your two senators are making? They said it clearly.

"his Catholic beliefs would lead him to rule against abortion rights, as well as that his membership in the Knights could be enough to disqualify him from serving as a judge at all".

 

Ok, lets go over this again. A Judge who possibly can't be impartial because of his religious beliefs vs a Republican leader who can't be a Republican because of  his religious beliefs. What part of that is even similar? What is the point you're trying to make here?

One Of These Things (Is just Like The Other)
One of these things is just like the other,

Can you tell which thing is just like the other
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was just like the other?
If you guessed they're just the same 
Then you're absolutely... right!

 

 

 

 

Jutu posted:

One Of These Things (Is just Like The Other)
One of these things is just like the other,

Can you tell which thing is just like the other
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was just like the other?
If you guessed they're just the same 
Then you're absolutely... right!

 

 

 

 

 

Silly question I know, but are there ever any intelligent dems that post here?

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

I can see how you misunderstand a judge being impartial is the same as a Republican not being a Republican. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:

One Of These Things (Is just Like The Other)
One of these things is just like the other,

Can you tell which thing is just like the other
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was just like the other?
If you guessed they're just the same 
Then you're absolutely... right!

 

 

 

 

 

Silly question I know, but are there ever any intelligent dems that post here?

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

Old hoss, it's way more intelligent than the things you've been posting.

L. Cranston posted:

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

I can see how you misunderstand a judge being impartial is the same as a Republican not being a Republican. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And still smarter than you! Ouchie crash, that has to hurt! I see you arguing about Republicans vs Dems on the subject of religious bigotry and being upset that you can't justify the left's bigotry. You tried by posting a non-story, then get upset when a real story, bigoted dem senators, is brought up. Why couldn't a Catholic judge be impartial? You seem to think a Muslim can be impartial. You are a bigot, just like your dem leaders.

Ilhan Omar, one of two female Muslims who became the first to be elected to Congress this month can now wear her  hijab in Congress. Isn't that special crash, changing an almost 200 year old law to accommodate a Muslim's religion, yet going after a Catholic for his religion is OK by you.

Jutu posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

I can see how you misunderstand a judge being impartial is the same as a Republican not being a Republican. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And still smarter than you! Ouchie crash, that has to hurt! I see you arguing about Republicans vs Dems on the subject of religious bigotry and being upset that you can't justify the left's bigotry. You tried by posting a non-story, then get upset when a real story, bigoted dem senators, is brought up. Why couldn't a Catholic judge be impartial? You seem to think a Muslim can be impartial. You are a bigot, just like your dem leaders.

You keep on posting those intelligent posts.
Judges being impartial is an integral part of the justice system. His ruling based on his religion instead of the law would be a waste of court time.

Republicans turning on Republicans because of Religion is only effecting Republicans.
Why couldn't a Judge of Mexican decent be impartial? That's Trump's own words! You can't stand being proven ignorant and it's still happening today. I'm tired of going in circles with someone of limited capacity of understanding. Your hate of anything you deem 'liberal' or 'Democrat' blocks your understanding and limits your ability to reason. Good day and happy blocking to you.

L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

I can see how you misunderstand a judge being impartial is the same as a Republican not being a Republican. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And still smarter than you! Ouchie crash, that has to hurt! I see you arguing about Republicans vs Dems on the subject of religious bigotry and being upset that you can't justify the left's bigotry. You tried by posting a non-story, then get upset when a real story, bigoted dem senators, is brought up. Why couldn't a Catholic judge be impartial? You seem to think a Muslim can be impartial. You are a bigot, just like your dem leaders.

You keep on posting those intelligent posts.
Judges being impartial is an integral part of the justice system. His ruling based on his religion instead of the law would be a waste of court time.

Republicans turning on Republicans because of Religion is only effecting Republicans.
Why couldn't a Judge of Mexican decent be impartial? That's Trump's own words! You can't stand being proven ignorant and it's still happening today. I'm tired of going in circles with someone of limited capacity of understanding. Your hate of anything you deem 'liberal' or 'Democrat' blocks your understanding and limits your ability to reason. Good day and happy blocking to you.

Hey crash, want to read hate go back and read your posts about Republicans. You are doing the same thing you've been doing about the bigots in the dem party.  They can be bigots but no one else can be perceived to be. You can hate Republicans and anything Conservative, but everyone should adore the liberals.  Now, again I ask, has there ever been an intelligent dem posting on here?

Jutu posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

I can see how you misunderstand a judge being impartial is the same as a Republican not being a Republican. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And still smarter than you! Ouchie crash, that has to hurt! I see you arguing about Republicans vs Dems on the subject of religious bigotry and being upset that you can't justify the left's bigotry. You tried by posting a non-story, then get upset when a real story, bigoted dem senators, is brought up. Why couldn't a Catholic judge be impartial? You seem to think a Muslim can be impartial. You are a bigot, just like your dem leaders.

You keep on posting those intelligent posts.
Judges being impartial is an integral part of the justice system. His ruling based on his religion instead of the law would be a waste of court time.

Republicans turning on Republicans because of Religion is only effecting Republicans.
Why couldn't a Judge of Mexican decent be impartial? That's Trump's own words! You can't stand being proven ignorant and it's still happening today. I'm tired of going in circles with someone of limited capacity of understanding. Your hate of anything you deem 'liberal' or 'Democrat' blocks your understanding and limits your ability to reason. Good day and happy blocking to you.

Hey crash, want to read hate go back and read your posts about Republicans. You are doing the same thing you've been doing about the bigots in the dem party.  They can be bigots but no one else can be perceived to be. You can hate Republicans and anything Conservative, but everyone should adore the liberals.  Now, again I ask, has there ever been an intelligent dem posting on here?

One last time... I'll type slow in hopes you can finally follow logic instead of Republican thinking.


If the judge were Muslim and had the same views, they'd still be against him, regardless of religious preference.

If the Republican leader were a Christian instead of Muslim, the Republicans would have no issue with his leadership.

Thus rendering your claim of 'because he was Catholic' a grandiose attempt at deflecting the issue.

I doubt any form of logic can get past your level of hate, but I did make one last attempt.

L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Jutu posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Thanks for that highly intelligent reply.

I can see how you misunderstand a judge being impartial is the same as a Republican not being a Republican. You have the mentality of a 10 year old.

And still smarter than you! Ouchie crash, that has to hurt! I see you arguing about Republicans vs Dems on the subject of religious bigotry and being upset that you can't justify the left's bigotry. You tried by posting a non-story, then get upset when a real story, bigoted dem senators, is brought up. Why couldn't a Catholic judge be impartial? You seem to think a Muslim can be impartial. You are a bigot, just like your dem leaders.

You keep on posting those intelligent posts.
Judges being impartial is an integral part of the justice system. His ruling based on his religion instead of the law would be a waste of court time.

Republicans turning on Republicans because of Religion is only effecting Republicans.
Why couldn't a Judge of Mexican decent be impartial? That's Trump's own words! You can't stand being proven ignorant and it's still happening today. I'm tired of going in circles with someone of limited capacity of understanding. Your hate of anything you deem 'liberal' or 'Democrat' blocks your understanding and limits your ability to reason. Good day and happy blocking to you.

Hey crash, want to read hate go back and read your posts about Republicans. You are doing the same thing you've been doing about the bigots in the dem party.  They can be bigots but no one else can be perceived to be. You can hate Republicans and anything Conservative, but everyone should adore the liberals.  Now, again I ask, has there ever been an intelligent dem posting on here?

One last time... I'll type slow in hopes you can finally follow logic instead of Republican thinking.


If the judge were Muslim and had the same views, they'd still be against him, regardless of religious preference.

If the Republican leader were a Christian instead of Muslim, the Republicans would have no issue with his leadership.

Thus rendering your claim of 'because he was Catholic' a grandiose attempt at deflecting the issue.

I doubt any form of logic can get past your level of hate, but I did make one last attempt.

You are ridiculous. The judges all have some religion, yet you are saying the bigoted senators would object the same if he was a Muslim? Bull hockey. They changed an almost 200 year old rule to accommodate a Muslim. You keep wanting to talk about hate. Why are you allowed your hate for Republicans and yet take offense at every objection I make to your silly slanted posts and call those rebuttals  hate? Am I supposed to "love" dems and just let your lies slide???

While, the Republicans objecting to a Muslim member on the party leadership were legally correct, they did not appear to be giving him a fair hearing

As to the members of the Knights of Columbus, the two Senators were both bigots and acting in an unconstitutional manner.  Did they forget Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution -- "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

If the man took the oath of the Knights of Columbus  and intends to honor the oath, then he can't uphold current laws.
What part of that is 'a test for public office'?

Denying a person a position because of race, creed, religion, or national origin is illegal.

direstraits posted:

For those illiterate as to religious test, in the past, persons could only hold office if they were Catholic, or if they were Church of England, depending upon the whims of the crown and Parliament, or the crown and Estates General in France. 

Now the dems think they have the say in whether or not a certain religion can hold office.

Jutu posted:
direstraits posted:

For those illiterate as to religious test, in the past, persons could only hold office if they were Catholic, or if they were Church of England, depending upon the whims of the crown and Parliament, or the crown and Estates General in France. 

Now the dems think they have the say in whether or not a certain religion can hold office.

That's nothing. Republicans think you have to be Christian to be Republican.

direstraits posted:

For those illiterate as to religious test, in the past, persons could only hold office if they were Catholic, or if they were Church of England, depending upon the whims of the crown and Parliament, or the crown and Estates General in France. 

Harris and Hirono should resign.

Jutu posted:
direstraits posted:

For those illiterate as to religious test, in the past, persons could only hold office if they were Catholic, or if they were Church of England, depending upon the whims of the crown and Parliament, or the crown and Estates General in France. 

Harris and Hirono should resign.

At a minimum, they should be treated like Representative Steve King (R, Iowa) and be removed from all committees, permanently.  Which would leave them almost powerless and useless to lobbyists. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×