Plum Crazy

Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America

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.

However when asked whether or not they would vote to confirm an atheist to the Supreme Court of the United States, only a couple of Senators said they would, as opposed to several who said they would not.

Sen. Robert Bennett (R.-Utah): Sure. I don’t think that a person’s religion, one way or the other, should be a disqualifying situation. There should be no religious test for national office. That should be very clear.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah): I think that it would be very hard to get an atheist through the system. But if the atheist was willing to abide by the law and really literally willing to do what’s right—you know, it would depend on what his attitude is about the law, what his attitude is about other people’s rights, what his attitude is about religious rights. . . . If that all fell together, sure.

We have some very decent atheists who respect the rights of others and who respect the rights of religion. So it depends on the person. It depends on . . . whether they’re in the mainstream of the law, whether they are honest and decent people. There are a hundred factors. Have to have good temperament and a hundred-and-one other things.

Good for Senators Bennett and Hatch!

Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.): No, I would not. To me, that totally contradicts everything that this country is founded on—including our Constitution, including our original oaths of office. Back in the colonial days, the whole purpose that people came here and lost their lives was to achieve the freedoms, of which the major freedom is freedom to love your Lord.

Guess Senator Inhofe is unfamiliar with the Constitution if he thinks that confirming an atheist is against that.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.): Well, I suppose it all depends. ... If a Clarence Thomas were nominated who embodies all of the characteristics of Clarence Thomas except his Christianity, but was very firm in his other beliefs, I might well. By the way, that’s an impossibility, but— ... I’m not so sure, because I agree with the premise. That’s why I said it’s probably an impossibility that someone would believe exactly as Clarence Thomas and yet could still be an atheist.

Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.): I don’t know, I’ve never contemplated such a thing, but I would—I don’t believe so, but I’ve never thought about it. I think the possibility of President Bush nominating an atheist is less than zero.

I agree that Bush probably wouldn't, but that doesn't really answer the question of what McCain would do.

Sen. Zell Miller (D.-Ga.): Nope.

Sen. Don Nickles (R.-Okla.): I don’t think so. Is there one coming? I don’t think so. No, I wouldn’t.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.): I don’t know that I’ve ever thought about that, quite frankly. I deal with each nominee as the nominee comes up, and I don’t start with any pre-conceived notions about them, other than that I want to know that they don’t have an agenda going into the nomination process or if appointed. So I have to know more about the person than about that. ... I don’t believe I would. I don’t want somebody with an agenda. I want to know what they stand for, but when they’re on the bench, I want them to make decisions based on law, even at the Supreme Court level. I think they have to be very cautious about legislating. They are adjudicators, not legislators. I appointed 45% of the judges in Nebraska, and I always held that to be the standard, and it will be the same standard for me here.

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D.-Md.): (Walking along, the senator silently refused to answer and instead entered the nearest elevator.)

I suppose since its obviously too much trouble for many of our Senators to read the legislation they vote on, it's too much trouble for them to read the Constitution they are bound to support. And yet we keep electing them...

Via 3DHS