Balkinization: Senator/Vice President Warren

Comments:

I think Sen. Warren should remain in her current position (or at best be appointed to another one as compared to being v.p.), but will put that aside. At least, my reasons go beyond the chance she will be replaced by a Republican.

The ultimate concern here is that a single seat in the U.S. Senate will matter so much that putting her seat at risk, even for a limited time, would be problematic. This is something that might happen in some other system where there is a very closely divided legislature. Branches of the state legislature (see, e.g., VA and NY) have turned on a seat or two in recent years. The mega issues of the Senate is duly noted.

The timing of her potential resignation and the details of the election is important and largely depends on the nuances of state law. A temporary executive appointment to fill a spot until an election can occur to me seems a reasonable approach as far as it goes. I am willing to assume it reflects more or less the practice of various places. We can push back against it but the real problem remains the importance one seat might have. This is a reflection of bigger issues.

[I note btw that the lame duck period is technically at least rather short -- the official counting of electors (a matter the Supreme Court covered this very week) being in early January. This provides time for extended counting and challenge periods ala Bush v. Gore and problems that might arise this very year.]

I find the Incompatibility Clause argument frivolous. Shag a few times noted the use of "he" in such cases; so maybe it doesn't apply to Elizabeths. (In the 19th Century, at the very least, one recent book on usage noted this was actually a serious dispute.)

# posted by

Joe : 3:40 PM

Interesting ideas here. I hadn't thought much about how a literal reading would have the VP presiding at their own impeachment or joe's mention of the word 'he' (that would be some delicious pie served to strict literalists to have to make an exception for Warren).

Question for the Democrats here: don't you think Biden should or is likely to choose a woman of color? I'm no campaign consultant, but it seems to me the demographic make up of the party increasingly should push in that direction. Maybe Biden is firmly established with minority voters because of the Obama halo still falling around him, but it seems to me that having a white woman is not going to get many white women who weren't going to vote against Trump in the first place to change their mind.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:14 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:25 PM

If Biden takes on Warren as a running mate, the Dems Senate position faces little risk.

If Biden wins, Warren will stay in the Senate until inauguration and it is extremely unlikely deep blue MA elects a Republican in a special election a couple months later. The Dems have not imposed any unpopular policies like Obamacare to make a GOP upset win like Scott Brown probable.

The Dems are unlikely to turn the Senate blue. AL will likely revert back to red, meaning the Dems would have to take six seats gain a majority and five to tie. Good luck with that.

However, let's assume for the sake of argument a blue tsunami no one can see now elects Biden, a blue House and a tied Senate, which would switch back to a GOP majority for a few weeks with a GOP substitute for Warren. What would it matter? The GOP does not need a majority to filibuster any substantive legislation. A temporary GOP majority could only delay money bills or a vote on a Biden nominee to replace to replace RBG if she dies after the inauguration.

The more interesting question is why would Biden want Warren as a running mate?

Biden does not like Warren or her Democratic socialist policies (at least not to her preferred extremes).

Warren brings no additional votes to Biden. Warren's MA is already in Biden's column and she demonstrated no significant draw among swing state voters during the primaries. Are there any swing state Democratic socialist voters Warren can deliver to Biden which will already not vote for him over Trump as the lesser of two evils?

Not seeing it.

Look for Biden to nominate a African American female to check two identity politics boxes with major Dem voter blocks.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:26 PM

"That means, among other things, that she'd be on the floor to participate in the all-important vote (assuming Democrats capture the Senate) to eliminate the filibuster in its entirety"

I noted a while back that there wasn't any point in Republicans preserving the filibuster, because Democrats would, predictably, abolish it the moment Republicans were in a position to use it themselves. Thanks for confirming that.

# posted by

Brett : 5:30 PM

Very interesting idea. Great idea, to have her, as VP. I quote the relevant clause:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

End of quotation:

But the clause, is emphasizing twice the timeline or alike, by using the word: "during". This word or terminology, suggests, that it is an external office or duty. One person, can't be member of either house during his continuance in office as dictated. It must refer to external office. Because, what it excludes, is both parallel services. Otherwise, there is no during, and no continuance. During something, means: that we describe, and action or process, cutting the axis of time. Such action then, must differ in this regard.

And by the way, the analogy with the impeachment, is of course problematic. For, the Senate is functioning as a court during impeachment. Ad hoc, sovereign/ popular court. So, they need ( the Senators) to take oath. To prevail as judges. So, how the VP, shall prevail for himself ? Under oath ? He can't be a judge, and defendant at the same time, or, running the show let alone.

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 5:32 PM

I'm with Joe in that I find the argument about the Incompatibility Clause frivolous. I'd say the same about Blackman's argument regarding the Emoluments Clause.

The rest involves a lot of counting chickens before they're hatched. Subject to that proviso, Warren would be my first choice for VP because she was my first choice for President anyway. There's another workaround too -- as I understand MA law, if she resigns before June 4, the election to replace her would take place on Nov 3 along with the presidential election (and perhaps solve the Markey/Kennedy primary contest). The risk there, of course, is that Biden loses, but in that case we'd have bigger problems than a single Dem Senator, no matter how good.

MW, lots of Dems have argued for a woman of color. Among the Senators and Governors, there are probably only 3 such candidates: Harris, Cortez-Mastro, and Grisham. Lots of people have mentioned Abrams, though her lack of experience is an issue. Other potential candidates -- say, Val Demings -- both lack experience and aren't well-known. Of all these, Harris is the safest choice (since CA won't elect an R Senator), though Abrams is a free agent, so to speak, and a House Member wouldn't pose any concerns.

I'm not sure any of the candidates would actually help Biden win, though arguments can be made for some of them. Whether you value that or the ability of someone to take over immediately probably affects the order you'd prefer.

# posted by

Mark Field : 5:41 PM

Sandy: "That means, among other things, that she'd be on the floor to participate in the all-important vote (assuming Democrats capture the Senate) to eliminate the filibuster in its entirety"

Brett: I noted a while back that there wasn't any point in Republicans preserving the filibuster, because Democrats would, predictably, abolish it the moment Republicans were in a position to use it themselves. Thanks for confirming that.

The Dems have bitterly regretted lifting the filibuster for judicial nominees and used it themselves to check Trump in 2017-2018.

Not seeing them lifting the filibuster any further.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:43 PM

Mark: There's another workaround too -- as I understand MA law, if she resigns before June 4, the election to replace her would take place on Nov 3 along with the presidential election (and perhaps solve the Markey/Kennedy primary contest). The risk there, of course, is that Biden loses, but in that case we'd have bigger problems than a single Dem Senator, no matter how good.

Forget the party. Would Warren wager her Senate seat on a Biden upset victory most of America does not see occurring?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:45 PM

"Thanks for confirming that."

Because Sandy Levinson is the official voice of the Democratic Party. That's why they call for constitutional conventions so much!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:16 PM

"Look for Biden to nominate a African American female to check two identity politics boxes with major Dem voter blocks."

I'd like to point out that checking 'identity boxes' is what *every* campaign does. Pence would not have been chosen had he been an atheist, for example, even if he held every policy view he does now.

For what it's worth, I think it's much more intelligent for Biden to pick a Hispanic woman and a newcomer on the national scene (New Mexico's governor for example).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:19 PM

"To prevail as judges. So, how the VP, shall prevail for himself ? Under oath ? He can't be a judge, and defendant at the same time, or, running the show let alone."

That's very reasonable but I think Sandy's point is that the Constitution, as written, can be read in very unreasonable ways.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:24 PM

There's actually something Bircher Brett said the other day I agree with in the discussion of presidential succession: you don't want policy change from historical accident (Pelosi taking over because Trump and Pence die, or vice versa). It's relevant to this discussion in that I think maybe laws about replacement substitutions might should be changed. So, if Warren were to pass or move on to VP, a better law than 'the current governor appoints a replacement' might be 'the party of the person gets to pick (in some fashion) the replacement.' Thoughts?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:29 PM

Yes, I second Mr. W. on using what Sandy Levinson suggests would be good Democratic hardball strategy as confirming what will actually happen.

Republicans are using the filibuster now by the way. They have little need to do so, yes, but something just was blocked by a filibuster (there was some crossovers on both sides but it was mainly partisan). McConnell basically doesn't need it, yes, since he uses the undemocratic (small 'd') method of not even bringing stuff to a vote, so even if some of his caucus members would be willing to break ranks, they don't have a shot.

It currently bad policy to have the filibuster in place & it was appropriate to end it for executive nominations. So, I think it would be ideal for the Democrats to end it if they had the chance. Since it took some doing to even change it for nominations when Republicans blatantly abused it, I'm not convinced the Democrats will end the filibuster totally. Let's say, I hope to see the opportunity arising.

I don't think my first choice for POTUS is necessary right for VP (the original rule was to give it to the run-up in electoral votes; thus we had Adams/Jefferson). I also would be surprised if it is Warren. But, it's a fair thought experiment.

# posted by

Joe : 6:41 PM

The "replacement has to be the party of the person leaving" rule is in place in some places & would apply in North Carolina (Burr/Democratic governor).

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vacancies-in-the-united-states-senate.aspx

The rule seems to be allowed by the language of the 17A though it isn't totally clear. It also seems to be a good policy.

# posted by

Joe : 6:47 PM

"They have little need to do so, yes, but something just was blocked by a filibuster"

The War Powers thing, right?

States' rights and textualist proponents gotta give the POTUS a blank check to start a war, amirite?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:52 PM

Mista Whiskas , I am not sure, that, that is what Sandy thinks. However, you can't read the constitution in unreasonable way. What you can, is to fill gaps, by implying correct interpretations. That is why there are courts. It is a trivial phenomenon, when legislators, leave gaps in legal texts, codes, constitutions and alike.

So, reasonableness, is not the right term. But, interpreting it, while using the right systematic/ methodological tools, like:

Seeking purpose, intent ( subjective or objective) history, structural analysis, functional one, and more... But gaps per se, doesn't imply unreasonable reading of course. Or rather, having gaps, doesn't mean, unreasonableness.

Thanks

# posted by

el roam : 7:01 PM

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/bernie-sanders-absent-as-anti-surveillance-senate-amendment-fails.html

To clarify the split, "24 Republicans voted for it, while 10 Democrats [generally familiar red state suspects & Feinstein who is more conservative on such issues] voted against it." A few were mad at Sanders for not being there, but if he was, figure some Republican would have voted the other way if necessary.

The Iran resolution (eventually vetoed) passed 55-45. Looking it up, such resolutions are not subject to filibuster. One more little bit of confusion.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/805594383/senate-approves-legislation-to-limit-presidents-war-powers-against-iran

# posted by

Joe : 7:07 PM

Thanks joe!

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:21 PM

"So, if Warren were to pass or move on to VP, a better law than 'the current governor appoints a replacement' might be 'the party of the person gets to pick (in some fashion) the replacement.' Thoughts?"

I'm generally in the same corner with you here; I don't want accidents changing political outcomes.

But I'm not terribly comfortable with formally recognizing parties in the process; What if somebody gets elected as an independent? Or what if they're elected as a party member, but were elected at odds with their party?

I'd rather just have candidates designate their own emergency replacements prior to running for the office, even as Presidents do. We could have an unpaid office of "Vice-Senator", for instance, or vice-Representative, and the actual Senator or Representative could hire them as a staff member if they wanted.

# posted by

Brett : 7:56 PM

Moscow Mitch has certainly used the ill fated lifting of the filibuster rule on judicial appointees to pack the Federal Courts with unqualified ideologues, which will haunt this Nation as long as it lasts, which seemingly won't be all that long.

# posted by

Ed Cooper : 8:36 PM

I'd rather just have candidates designate their own emergency replacements prior to running for the office, even as Presidents do.

The President does not merely on their own do this. It is done via a party process. And, constitutionally, it is set up for the vice president to be elected separately. Rules are in place there (e.g., if there is no majority, the Senate decides) and how a vice president is replaced. In that case, the Congress has to agree. The v.p. also is not unpaid, more than merely a member of the staff.

The 17A sets up a different system -- no "vice" senator. An election takes place with a state-wide elected official selecting a temporary placeholder if the legislature so determines. This suggests independent judgment of what is necessary at the time. The insert of the parties here also reflects historical practice since the 1790s. Parties also are useful organized popular reflections of the public will.

A different system where the senator designates a successor makes some degree of sense but it is unclear if it is a better approach. The usual approach to fill a vacancy is some sort of popular process. If possible, the person leaving might have a say, but they don't have complete power to designate. To be a match to the presidential system, however, it would occur before the election and some process would be in place to also accept the "vice senator." It is a rarity to have a truly independent senator at any rate.

# posted by

Joe : 11:05 PM

BD: "Look for Biden to nominate a African American female to check two identity politics boxes with major Dem voter blocks."

Mr. W: I'd like to point out that checking 'identity boxes' is what *every* campaign does. Pence would not have been chosen had he been an atheist, for example, even if he held every policy view he does now.

Ideology and geography, not identity. Trump chose Pence because he was a movement conservative from the Midwest. The Donald had to convince people like me he was not a NYC progressive and he needed the Midwest to win the election.

For what it's worth, I think it's much more intelligent for Biden to pick a Hispanic woman and a newcomer on the national scene (New Mexico's governor for example).

Could be.

If he is going to play identity politics games, Biden really needs a hispanic male because Trump is making inroads there.

I suspect Biden will instead try to motivate the two largest parts of the Dem base - women and African American voters - with a token VP pick.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:55 PM

"Ideology and geography, not identity."

Lol, ideology and geography are certainly also identity. Like I said, if Pence held every position he does but was a technical atheist he'd have zero chance of being the nominee. And where you're from is as much identity as anything else.

Note, I'm not saying he was a bad pick, he almost certainly wasn't, but he was certainly an identity pick.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:43 AM

"The President does not merely on their own do this. It is done via a party process."

Major party Presidential candidates typically designate their desired VP candidate, and the party goes along with it. When is the last time you recall a major party candidate having a VP they don't want foisted on them by the party?

Some third parties separately elect them at the convention. And, it's at least possible to run for President as an independent, in which case they'd use whatever process they pleased.

At that point, have you seen separate ballot lines for President and vice-President? No, they are elected as a team, whatever else might be constitutionally permissible.

"The v.p. also is not unpaid, more than merely a member of the staff."

Right, the VP also has assigned duties besides waiting for the President to croak. But I understood myself to be proposing a NEW system, for the House and Senate, and I don't think we've got formal jobs enough for that many new people.

# posted by

Brett : 8:04 AM

Define "want". Eisenhower didn't want Nixon, and Kennedy didn't really want Johnson but thought he needed him to balance the ticket.

# posted by

Mark Field : 8:49 AM

Mr. W:

The term “identity politics” generally refers to race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, not the traditional political touchstones of ideology and geography..

Go look it up.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:41 AM

I see, Bart.

So some choices calculated to appeal to certain constituencies are just politics as usual, while others are loathesome "identity politics."

Gee, that's dumb.

"Traditional political touchstones." What a laugh.

# posted by

byomtov : 11:11 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:19 AM

byomtov:

If it is loathesome to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, then it is equally loathesome to order our politics around these inate characteristics.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:19 AM

Speaking from the non-lawyer side of the room, I agree with Mark Field that the Blackman/Tillman arguments, and the hairsplitting distinctions they try to draw, are frivolous, not to mention silly.

They go beyond any rational attempt to extract precise meaning from a necessarily sometimes ambiguous document.

# posted by

byomtov : 11:24 AM

Major party Presidential candidates typically designate their desired VP candidate, and the party goes along with it. When is the last time you recall a major party candidate having a VP they don't want foisted on them by the party?

As Mark suggests, the candidate generally works within the party, not as a solo actor. This underlines the role of parties here, reflected from the days of the 12A.

Some third parties separately elect them at the convention. And, it's at least possible to run for President as an independent, in which case they'd use whatever process they pleased.

"At least possible" is not really how we set forth general rules. Even Perot found use of the Reform Party.

At that point, have you seen separate ballot lines for President and vice-President? No, they are elected as a team, whatever else might be constitutionally permissible.

The Constitution sets forth a separate electoral vote for vice president and president & various rules to deal with filling the role (the Senate picked the v.p. once; Congress confirms a presidential nomination per the 25A etc.). The president and vice president are basically voted for together on Election Day but the process as a whole makes the vice president a separate position with various complexities. This raises the position's importance; it is not merely the choice of the candidate.

Right, the VP also has assigned duties besides waiting for the President to croak. But I understood myself to be proposing a NEW system, for the House and Senate, and I don't think we've got formal jobs enough for that many new people.

Yes, I was pointing out the differences since you compared the two. If a "vice" senator cannot be found a role, maybe, it would make sense to keep the procedure in place now where the people and people they elect choose replacements.

The party wrinkle can be dealt with as a few states now do.

# posted by

Joe : 11:32 AM

If it is loathesome to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, then it is equally loathesome to order our politics around these inate characteristics.

I note you omitted religion, which has certainly become a touchstone of Republican politics, not least in the selection of Pence, who, as MW points out, would not have been chosen had he been an atheist, or possibly even a Roman Catholic.

In any case, I disagree and see no basis for your statement. You are claiming that it's OK to pick a VP candidate to appeal to southerners, but not to pick one to appeal to blacks.

Of course, since you automatically see the selection of a black woman as a "token pick," I guess I do understand your POV.

# posted by

byomtov : 11:34 AM

BD: If it is loathesome to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, then it is equally loathesome to order our politics around these inate characteristics.

byomtov: I note you omitted religion, which has certainly become a touchstone of Republican politics...

Actually, progressives made religion a major political issue by directing the government to discriminate against religion in general and Christianity in particular. (They appear to be afraid of Muslims)

The Republicans are divided over responding. The Elephant progressive establishment generally has no problem with the discrimination, while the discrimination fires up the faithful in the base.

For reasons that I cannot fathom beyond a cult of personality, the playboy and serial adulterer Trump was already popular with the faithful in the base and did not need Pence to help him establish street cred with this group.

You are claiming that it's OK to pick a VP candidate to appeal to southerners, but not to pick one to appeal to blacks.

Yes. Let me turn that around for you. Would you agree that it's acceptable to pick a VP candidate to appeal to midwesterners, but not one who appeals to whites?

If we ever want to stop discriminating on the basis of race, we have to stop dividing into racial tribes and discriminating on the basis of race.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:50 AM

Bart: "a token VP pick". To a member of the racist party, no black woman can possibly fill Trump's shoes. Mind you, I actually agree with Bart that Biden will in fact make this choice (Abrams or Harris), unless he goes for the Asian=American Duckworth. The difference is that I expect any of these will make a good successor to President Biden, for five to eight years. Biden won't serve a second term.

# posted by

James Wimberley : 11:58 AM

James Wimberley: To a member of the racist party, no black woman can possibly fill Trump's shoes.

Could be. Democrats are the ongoing party of government racial discrimination and failed to choose a black woman to run against Trump.

From a Republican POV, Candace Owens could replace Trump very nicely.

I actually agree with Bart that Biden will in fact make this choice (Abrams or Harris), unless he goes for the Asian=American Duckworth. The difference is that I expect any of these will make a good successor to President Biden, for five to eight years. Biden won't serve a second term.

Either would be more mentally competent to serve as POTUS than Biden right now. If Biden wins, it will be interesting to see who ends up running the government in a first term as Old Joe descends into complete dementia.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:25 PM

Mr. W's citation of possible Latinx picks is not out of the realm of possibility.

There are decent strategic arguments for one or more. Someone on another blog brought up Duckworth. She's an interesting pick and seems like someone Biden himself would be inclined to be comfortable with.

The general idea is that black voters, especially older ones, are already favorable to Biden (even "saved him" in South Carolina) and he has said he will appoint a black woman to SCOTUS (shades of Reagan).

Here's a pro-Duckworth argument: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/29/tammy-duckworth-is-bidens-safest-smartest-vice-presidential-pick/

# posted by

Joe : 12:28 PM

progressives made religion a major political issue by directing the government to discriminate against religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Right. If by "discriminate against Christianity" you mean, "not let Evangelical Christians dictate the laws" that's accurate. There is no discrimination against Christianity whatosever and progressives have never "directed the government" to engage in such discrimination.

What Christian has been denied a job, or housing, or college admission, say, because of government anti-Christian discrimination.

Your claim is utter right-wing nonsense. I will go so far as to say this is typical of the idiotic notions the right repeats that make me think it is impossible for our country to reconcile.

# posted by

byomtov : 1:10 PM

Byomtov:

The secular progressive position is the faithful, especially Christians, may not freely exercise their religion in the public square or government controlled spaces, nor may they do business unless they accommodate or celebrate all manner of acts they consider to be sins, nor may they receive public monies for providing public goods.

If you resist these violations of free exercise of religion, you are accused of dictating the law.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:00 PM

What Sniffles is trying to say is that Jesus hated gay people and therefore he isn’t obliged to make wedding cakes for gay people in his wedding cake store. Basically, Sniffles is a moron.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 3:53 PM

bb:

You might want to read what Jesus said about adultery.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:31 PM

I wasn't aware it was illegal to pray, for example, in a public park. Not even for Christians.

What a pathetic joke.

# posted by

byomtov : 8:23 PM

"if Pence held every position he does but was a technical atheist he'd have zero chance of being the nominee."

In fact, the reason we protect free exercise is that people consider their religious beliefs intrinsic to their identity: "I'm Catholic" or "I'm Christian" or "I'm Jewish". If you're in Britain, "I'm Millwall" works too.

# posted by

Mark Field : 8:47 PM

byomtov:

I am discussing what secular progressives have argued. They thankfully have not always succeeded.

As to prayer, secular progressives literally want to silence the faithful outside if churches and homes.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:30 PM

Bart,

That's absurd. Show me where progressives have tried to make it illegal to pray in a park.

What (some) Christians are upset about is that they may not take over the parks and use them for the display of Christian symbols. That's not discrimination or anything remotely similar. It is simply telling them that Christianity, popular though it is, enjoys no special privileges.

Claims otherwise are worse than laughable. Those making them are fools, scoundrels, or would-be theocrats.

# posted by

byomtov : 9:53 PM

You might want to read what Jesus said about adultery.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 5:31 PM

You voted for Trump, you moron.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:03 PM

byomtov: "Bart, That's absurd. Show me where progressives have tried to make it illegal to pray in a park.

Milwaukee County v. Carter, 258 Wis. 139 (1950).

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:40 PM

bb: What Sniffles is trying to say is that Jesus hated gay people and therefore he isn’t obliged to make wedding cakes for gay people in his wedding cake store.

No Christian would say Jesus hated anyone. Jesus loves the sinner and hates the sin.

Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."

John 8:1-11 in the New Revised Standard Version.

Most faiths believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Moreover, Christians believe that marriage is a covenant of God.

Secular progressives seek to force Christians who bake cakes or are otherwise in the business of providing goods and services for marriage ceremonies to celebrate a government redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions contrary to their beliefs because they loathe those beliefs.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:59 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:23 AM

Secular progressives seek to force Christians who bake cakes or are otherwise in the business of providing goods and services for marriage ceremonies to celebrate a government redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions contrary to their beliefs because they loathe those beliefs.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:59 PM

So throwing rocks at adulterers is bad but throwing them at the gays is ok?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:26 AM

No Christian would say Jesus hated anyone. Jesus loves the sinner and hates the sin.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:59 PM

Jesus: I love you. But bake your own fucking cake. And don't take any of those fish, either.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:33 AM

"The term “identity politics” generally refers to race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, not the traditional political touchstones of ideology and geography.. "

Bircher Bart stumbles on something here, albeit unwittingly. 'Identity politics' is just the idea that it's ok for groups whose identifying factors are important to them but who were traditionally excluded from politics to demand their group interests to be addressed the same way traditionally included identity groups had. Politicians had always gone to St. Patrick Day's parades to fete the Irish, they had always gone to all-male social societies to seek votes, to state fairs to win people from those states, to Knights of Columbus dinners to pander to Catholics, etc.,. The only difference under identify politics is traditionally excluded groups such as blacks, women, hispanics, gay persons, are urged to play the same game. Interestingly, it's only when such persons began to do so that many people started to decry 'identity politics' under the rhetoric of being against 'discrimination' (these are of course people who don't care much of a fig about discrimination in other areas).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:32 AM

"Milwaukee County v. Carter"

1. The law in question forbid having a *religious service* at the park, it specifically and explicitly allowed 'the offering of an invocation, prayer, or hymn.'

2. The case in question involved a Jehovah Witness service. At this time Jehovah Witnesses were the subjects of many First Amendment lawsuits because most mainstream Christians considered them as akin to a cult, so it's as likely this action was the cause of mainstream-conservative Christian sentiment against such 'heretics' than 'progressive secularists' (note: it was the 'progressive secularists' on the Warren Court who did the yeoman's work in establishing precedent to protect the Witnesses).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:37 AM

Notice that Bircher Bart gives 'secular progressives' the most uncharitable motive one possibly can (they hold the position they do on discrimination based on sexual orientation because they 'loathe' Christian religious beliefs) but the best possible motive to religious conservatives that want to discriminate based on sexual orientation (they're just following their religious principles and don't hate anyone).

Every accusation is a confession.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:39 AM

"as Old Joe descends into complete dementia."

I wonder if that dementia would take the forms of talking about injecting disinfectant into the lungs?

Every accusation is a confession.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:43 AM

"If it is loathesome to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, then it is equally loathesome to order our politics around these inate characteristics."

This is very specious reasoning. By it, one would have to assume that, say, in 1930 America it was equally racist to support the NAACP and the KKK.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:48 AM

Bart: "Moreover, Christians believe that marriage is a covenant of God." It is also, and necessarily, an institution of secular law. What right have believers to impose their views on religious marriage on non-believers?

There's an episode in Evelyn Waugh's "Sword of Honour" trilogy in which the anti-hero Guy Crouchback meets up with his divorced ex-wife. He proposes sex. She is shocked. From his point of view, they are still married in the eyes of God, a secular divorce decree does not change this, so why not go to bed? This ultramontane position is batty but at lest consistent: Protestants, Jews, and atheists may shack up but they aren't Married. No more are gay couples in Nevada. Since the ceremony is not Marriage, normal nondiscrimination rules apply.

# posted by

James Wimberley : 9:36 AM

Byomtov:

I offer Mr. W and bb as further proof of secular progressive hostility to and dishonesty concerning religion. Loathing is not too strong a word.

Back to the politics of this fear and loathing, while a good Christian will turn the other cheek and attempt to love their enemies, this hardly means they will decline to politically and legally resist the persecution or support those who will champion that resistance like Trump, even though the man’s personal life is a long series of sins.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:17 AM

BD: Moreover, Christians believe that marriage is a covenant of God.

James Wimberley: It is also, and necessarily, an institution of secular law. What right have believers to impose their views on religious marriage on non-believers?

If Christians were abusing government power to force homosexuals into heterosexual marriage or sanctioning homosexuals if they declared themselves married, they would most definitely be violating the Establishment Clause and freedom of speech.

However, what was at contention were laws legally recognizing, subsidizing and placing responsibilities on marriage. Marriage is a secular as well as a religious institution which provides a myriad of secular benefits to the husband, wife, children and society. These laws do not remotely establish a state religion.

I would note SSM advocates never claimed these laws were a violation of the establishment clause. Rather, they wanted the courts to redefine marriage to use these laws to force governmental and thus societal recognition and subsidy of homosexual unions.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:28 AM

Further thought on marriage. Secular law dominates religious doctrine here. It may recognize religious marriages under strict procedural conditions (USA, UK) or mot at all (France). It may impose non-procedural requirements on recognized religious marriages. Islam allows polygamy, but non-Muslim states do not generally permit polygamous marriage rites on their territory. They may recognize foreign polygamoue marriages for some purposes (inheritance) but not others (residence, social insurance). Religious marriage exists on sufferance.

# posted by

James Wimberley : 10:32 AM

I offer Mr. W and bb as further proof of secular progressive hostility to and dishonesty concerning religion. Loathing is not too strong a word.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:17 AM

Sniffles, my hatred for you has nothing to do with religion. It’s because you’re a lying racist scumbag.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:58 AM

"I offer Mr. W and bb as further proof of secular progressive hostility to and dishonesty concerning religion. "

Of course, I've not denigrated religion at all. I'm a Baptist, after all, and that's an important part of my identity. Bircher Bart is just flailing as usual.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:56 AM

"However, what was at contention were laws legally recognizing, subsidizing and placing responsibilities on marriage. "

And many Christians unfortunately wanted to make sure that only one set of people got their marriages recognized, subsidized and placing responsibilities on them. People with their orientation, of course. In other words, loathsome discrimination based on sexual orientation, favoring theirs. Identity politics, just that favored by the Right.

Identity

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 11:59 AM

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 12:01 PM

Third thought on marriage. I once attended the wedding of Quaker friends in Oxford. Quaker marriages have been permitted by English law since 1753, but there are two problems. The usual scheme as I understand it is that specified ministers of religion are licensed to perform marriages and keep a register. Quakers don't have ministers. The workaround is that a Registering Officer is designated by the Friends for each area. The second is the lack of fixed rites. The workaround (essentially a concession to the state) is that the Quaker couple can of course wait for the Spirit to inspire them to make their vows. But the Spirit has to tell them to used a concise fixed form of words.(https://www.quaker.org.uk/about-quakers/our-faith/marriages-funerals). I can't find statistical evidence, but I doubt very much if this minimalist approach leads to high divorce rates and epidemics of wife-swapping orgies.

# posted by

James Wimberley : 12:03 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:22 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:25 PM

Mr. W: The case in question involved a Jehovah Witness service. At this time Jehovah Witnesses were the subjects of many First Amendment lawsuits because most mainstream Christians considered them as akin to a cult, so it's as likely this action was the cause of mainstream-conservative Christian sentiment against such 'heretics' than 'progressive secularists'

BD: I offer Mr. W and bb as further proof of secular progressive hostility to and dishonesty concerning religion.

Mr. W: Of course, I've not denigrated religion at all. I'm a Baptist, after all...

This is like arguing you are not a racist because you have black friends.

BTW, the Milwaukee county ordinance in question applied to "mainstream Christians" as well as the folks you dismiss as a cult. It is unlikely that "mainstream Christians" like Baptists imposed this prohibition on themselves.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:32 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 1:38 PM

New York is something of an outlier on marriage.

It took until quite recently for them to dispose of no-fault divorce.

There still are technical rules that might cause problem if anyone pressed them. A major one is akin the Quakers in a fashion. If you read the NYT wedding announcements, you will regularly see people being married by friends and family via them being self-ordained online (the Universal Life Church is a favorite option).

But, this is of rather unclear legality. The highest court in New York never decided it, but at least one lower court (covering parts of NYC) held that is not the type of "minister" state law means when it spells out the rules. If you look, they do include certain ethical societies. But, not all. An attempt is being made (including by my senator*) to at least allow such "ministers" to (with a small fee) do one-offs.

(One intermediate NY court of appeals recently said that Universal Life Church internet ministers probably count; another covering parts of NYC never decided it -- so technically, where in NYC you preside over a wedding might matter here.)

I find this remainder of mixture of sectarian religion and state silly and problematic. If someone wants to have their marriage presided over such a minister, I think they have a right to do so. Why should the individual conscience of such people matter more than a Quaker or an organized racist church or something? In fact, many states, including some rather conservative states count such ministers.

BTW, I saw a brief by the Quakers for same sex marriages cases here supportive of the them, noting their religion back in the early 1980s recognized same sex marriage. Back in the 1940s, a religious liberty argument was used to support a right to interracial marriage.

---

* When Sen. Biaggi was married last year, she had her friend from the assembly preside over the wedding. The friend is not to my knowledge a minister or some special expert on marriages. But, a member of the assembly, she apparently is allowed to do so. Judges can too. OTOH, a federal judge might be an issue. So, the state legislature passed a law allowing them. Cuomo vetoed it because some Trump appointed judge might benefit. Cuomo has done some good things, but that's one of his petty moments.

# posted by

Joe : 1:43 PM

Note that Christians receive protections under federal and state non-discrimination laws marking religious groups as a protected group. They never made a fuss over that. But when those protections were extended to gay persons they threw a fit about them.

Well, some Christians.

Others have been quite supportive.

The issue of applying rules to religious groups during the pandemic has been brought up on these pages. The Sixth Circuit granted an injunction regarding the governor of Kentucky applying rules to church services. I'm wary but think drive-in services might work. Still, as the district court judge noted, a church is not like other exceptions:

Plaintiffs seek to compare in-person attendance at church services with presence at a liquor store or “supercenter store[].” The latter, however, is a singular and transitory experience: individuals enter the store at various times to purchase various items; they move around the store individually—subject to strict social-distancing guidelines...—and they leave when they have achieved their purpose. Plaintiffs’ desired church service, in contrast, is by design a communal experience, one for which a large group of individuals come together at the same time in the same place for the same purpose.

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2020/04/churchs-challenge-to-kentucky-ban-on.html

Religion is protected by the 1st Amendment and is a basic part of human society, including in our history. In a broad sense, this includes matters of conscience. So, more care should be provided than if some clothing store is being regulated or anything. Still, basic rules still apply and "religious liberty" at times is dubious special pleading.

# posted by

Joe : 1:53 PM

Milwaukee County v. Carter

Well, that's seriously unimpressive. A state case from 70 years ago, challenging a municipal ordinance that, as MW says, was likely motivated by Christian hostility to Jehovah's Witnesses.

That's your case for progressive discrimination against Christians. This refutes your claim, rather than supporting it.

Christians believe that marriage is a covenant of God.

Let them believe what they like. But then they surely also believe that SSM is not real marriage at all, so what is the objection? A cake to celebrate a non-marriage ought to be no more of a problem than a birthday cake.

# posted by

byomtov : 2:03 PM

I will highlight a part of my comment. The Democrats in Mass. Have a VETO PROOF majority. They can change the law governing a vacancy. They changed the law at Ted Kennedy’s request as he knew he was dying.

Governor Baker’s appointment power can be mooted.

When it looked like Elizabeth Warren had a real shot, and I was representing her at local Democratic clubs in NY for the primary, I made that exact point.

The new Congress takes power on January 3rd. The rules of the House and Senate are adopted at that point. The Dems in the Senate theoretically can keep power throughout the whole Congress by the rules they adopt. There are 17 days between Jan 3 and Jan 20th at noon.

However the Vacancy rules were changed at Ted Kennedy’s request as he knew he was dying.

The Senate vacancy rules can be changed again in Mass to make sure a Democrat succeeds Warren expeditiously. I think the AG Maura Healey would be great.

The Dems have a veto proof majority in both Houses in Mass. Republican Governor Charlie Baker can have his appointment ability taken away from him. Or that the law must be as it is in North Carolina that a person of the same party must be appointed for that vacancy. Interim or not.

Or for instance it could state that upon NOTIFICATION of the vacancy in that seat that a special election would be held within a very short of time frame. That an actual vacancy would not be needed to begin the countdown.

Picking Elizabeth Warren for VP does not mean we lose a Democratic seat in the Senate.

# posted by

debcoop : 2:26 PM

"the Milwaukee county ordinance in question applied to "mainstream Christians" as well as the folks you dismiss as a cult."

Lol, reading comprehension escapes our Bircher yet again. I never dismissed or even called the JW's a cult, instead I said "most mainstream Christians considered them as akin to a cult." That's just US history.

Like most conservative 'Christian-martyrs' outrage stories our Bircher's is not only a case of manufactured outrage, it's shoddily constructed to boot ;)

"It is unlikely that "mainstream Christians" like Baptists imposed this prohibition on themselves."

Again, there's a history of these anti-JW laws being passed at the general level but enforced only against groups like the JWs.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:30 PM

Btw- there was a time early in my faith's time that they were largely considered a cult! I'm certainly not denigrating them to point out this historical fact.

Again, manufactured outrage, and of shoddy construction to boot.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:33 PM

Of course, we're also in major 'every accusation is a confession' country here. If you want hostility to religion, which party's Presidential nominee and now sitting President called for a ban on immigration of people holding a certain religion?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 2:37 PM

If the MA legislature is willing to quickly change the law regarding appointments, and a comment makes a good point there given the size of Democratic control of the legislature, that is something to underline.

The concern is partially that Scott Brown won last time a vacancy popped up. So, people think even a very small risk is not worth it. The Dems have a better candidate now and the political winds are different, but again, even a small risk concerns people.

If Warren was setting aside for POTUS, fine; v.p.? Well, that (and other stuff) factors into decision-making.

# posted by

Joe : 3:06 PM

As I also noted the law could also mandate that the Governor must appoint someone of the same party. That is the law in NC,Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming.

# posted by

debcoop : 3:14 PM

Most state regulation of marriage originated in religious disputes. The Church of England began tracking marriages in 1537, and couples had to follow Anglican ceremonies to be considered married for quite a long time thereafter. This was a major burden on dissenting sects and Jews (once they were allowed back in England). Even in the mid-19th C, marriages in Austro-Hungary had to be Catholic. Jewish weddings, for example, were not recognized and children of Jewish marriages were registered as illegitimate. Even today, the Catholic Church requires lots of formalities for a church wedding.

It's the secular tradition which has created religious liberty.

# posted by

Mark Field : 3:18 PM