In this mailing: - Chris Farrell: In Florida's Election: It May be 'Legal,' but is It Right?
- Alan M. Dershowitz: Questioning Supreme Court Nominees about Religion: A Delicate Task
by Chris Farrell • September 24, 2020 at 5:00 am Those are 32,000 votes deemed pro-Biden in a state where 537 votes decided the presidential election in 2000. Florida, a critical swing state, has 29 electoral college votes that could determine the presidency. One is left to wonder about what appears to be a slick, well-financed, lawyered-up, manipulation of the electoral process. It appears to have less to do with a legitimate, grassroots campaign to rehabilitate persons who have paid their legal dues for past misconduct than it does as a cynical, orchestrated, vote buying and manipulation process.
 Last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida's law requiring convicted felons in Florida to pay court-ordered fines, fees and restitution before having their voting rights reinstated. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, has "paid off monetary obligations for 32,000 felons in Florida" so that they can vote. Pictured: The Elbert P. Tuttle U.S. Court of Appeals Building, home of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Atlanta, Georgia. (Image source: Warren LeMay/Wikimedia Commons) Last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida's law requiring convicted felons in Florida to pay court-ordered fines, fees and restitution before having their voting rights reinstated. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who raised more than $16 million for this purpose, has, together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, "paid off monetary obligations for 32,000 felons in Florida" so that they can vote. Those are 32,000 votes deemed pro-Biden in a state where 537 votes decided the presidential election in 2000. Florida, a critical swing state, has 29 electoral college votes that could determine the presidency. Continue Reading Article by Alan M. Dershowitz • September 24, 2020 at 4:00 am When Judge Amy Coney Barrett came before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her nomination to the court of appeals, Senator Diane Feinstein generated considerable controversy when she said to Barrett: "The dogma lives loudly in you." ... Under our Constitution, Senator Feinstein's statement crossed the line. Ours was the first Constitution in history to provide that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Although Feinstein did not explicitly impose a religious test, she suggested that personal religious views -- which she called dogma -- might disqualify a nominee from being confirmed. That would clearly be unconstitutional. Religious tests have no place in America. But what does have a place in the confirmation process are questions about whether a nominee will put faith before the Constitution and refuse to apply the Constitution if it conflicts with his or her faith. That issue would be true of any nominee regardless of their faith or faithlessness. President John F. Kennedy assured us that his Catholicism would not determine the nation's policy. Justice Antonin Scalia said the same about his Catholicism and his jurisprudence. One's religion is a private matter, but one's judicial philosophy is highly relevant in the confirmation process... Let us hope the Senate handles this nomination better than they have handled other recent nominations.
 Two of the leading candidates for nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett and Judge Barbara Lagoa, are Catholic. So, the issue of religion is likely to come up at any confirmation hearing. It must be handled with delicacy and sensitivity to the Constitution's prohibition against religious tests, as well as to the respect we must all pay to people of faith. Pictured: Barbara Lagoa (center) speaks at the event where Governor Ron DeSantis named her to the Florida Supreme Court, on January 9, 2019 in Miami, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) When Judge Amy Coney Barrett came before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for her nomination to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Senator Diane Feinstein generated considerable controversy when she said to Barrett: "The dogma lives loudly in you." This was a reference to Barrett's deep Catholic faith. Under our Constitution, Senator Feinstein's statement crossed the line. Ours was the first Constitution in history to provide that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Although Feinstein did not explicitly impose a religious test, she suggested that personal religious views -- which she called dogma -- might disqualify a nominee from being confirmed. That would clearly be unconstitutional. Continue Reading Article |
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment