Subscribe to EspressoPundit

« Falling For it... | Main | Close, but still missing a weasel word »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Professors should agree to take a 20% pay cut so more students can attend instead of raising tuition to offset State cuts to balance the budget.

Commissioner Araneta is a religious bigot. This commission is starting off on the wrong (read that "left") foot. Paul Bender has been appointed as the "independent?" What a joke! This is what we get when the people turn our republic into a democracy. Benjamin Franklin was so prophetic. In answer to a question from the wife of a Philadelphia doctor ("Dr. Franklin, what type of government did you give us?"), Franklin answered, "A republic, if you can keep it." The Founders continue to turn over in their graves as we slowly, but surely, destroy this republic.

Mr. Araneta and all the members of the commission that allowed this bigoted statement go unchallenged should resign after appointing Mr. Gleason to the finalist list.

It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on this since I think this joker, Araneta, is also responsible for recommending judicial appointments.

God help us all...

If the report is true, and all I have seen seems to be an anonymous witness (aren't these things recorded?), Araneta should be removed from this commission. I would also have to question his powers of reason since nothing in Gleason's statement indicates he is looking to use the commission to further his religious beliefs in variance with the purpose of the commission, which of course would be grounds to reject.

I have read over the applications and one pattern becomes rather clear and it is not discrimination against Christians. The true issue here is that unless you are a former politician or a lawyer or, even better, both, you have little chance of getting on this commission. Clearly, the commission is rigged to include mostly people who are connected and reject those who are not. I suspect his is what did in Mr Gleason's application.

RonJ - Paul Bender is a registered independent. What possible grounds to you have to claim he isn't ?

I wonder if Mr Araneta and his colleagues were required to swear or affirm that they would uphold our constitution, which begins “We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.”

I wonder if he knows what it says. And if he does, I wonder if he would say that atheists need not apply as they could not in good faith take such an oath or make such an affirmation. For some reason I doubt it, at least if the report is true.

Todd,

I don't think Ron's point is that Bender is not registered as an independent but rather that he is not representative of most independents (who tend toward the center). Bender is considered by many to be to the left of most Democrats. It's as if numerous conservatives registered as Democrats and were thus appointed. Sure, they would be legitimately registered as Dems but not at all representative of most Democrats.

Ken, are you suggesting he is not wrong for supposedly applying a religious test for this office but rather he just is using the wrong one?

Todd,

I am suggesting that he is wrong, period. But if he wants to apply a religious test it would be more logical to require some belief in God (in accordance with our constitution) than the opposite. But, as Greg points out, religious tests for holding office are against the federal constitution. Thus, Araneta is doubly wrong.

Ken, Actually, I believe the ban on religious tests in the US Constitution only applies to federal offices. It was the Supreme Court ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins that found it a violation of the 1st amendment for states to impose religious tests and they didn't rule on if it violates Article VI, contrary to Greg's claim.

As to independents, in fact independents do not tend to the center. Many find the two main parties are not liberal or conservative enough. Perhaps Mr Bender has correctly surmised the Democrats have become quite conservative or maybe he is simply not a joiner. Either way, I find the argument that someone doesn't represent a group of people whose only commonality is not joining one of the two major parties to be rather difficult to take seriously.

I think the lines should be drawn by people who aren't registered to vote.

The appointment process should be totally transparent to the public. Thanks are owed to the Center for AZ Policy for bringing this issue to light, but how many more finalists for this commission have a biased agenda to drive? The integrity of our elections and fairness in how our districts are drawn is vital for the future of our state.

I have been very upset about this since I first read about it in the Republic and it became a major story on all the local TV news.... oh, wait. Yeah, this is no story; nothing here. Keep moving...


What I wouldn't give for one serious reporter in this town...

Ken, thanks, you covered my thoughts well. Todd, please stop pretending to be so naive. We all know who Paul Bender is and what his politics are. He is simply wrong for this commission. The only reason Bender registers as an independent is because he wouldn't get anywhere registering as a Marxist.

RonJ
I don't know whether Mr Bender is a Marxist or not, although I doubt it, but are you saying that if he were this would be reason to bar him from the commission? Again, independent means not belonging to one if the two major parties that is all.

Todd, that is not what independent is. It means not belonging to ANY party. So another suit could come from the Libertarians and the Greens, they get zero representation in the redistricting process.

Greybeard. You are if course correct that the commission specifies one be unaffiliated with any political party.

Todd,

You may be right about the prohibition of a religious test not applying to states -- I am not a lawyer. However, the SCOTUS has extended (rightly or wrongly) many federal provisions to the states and local governments via the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. I was assuming that this was the case here.

Update,

The jerk who started the controversy has resigned from the committee.

/www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_9dc4286e-07d7-11e0-90d4-001cc4c03286.html

Good riddance!

Todd, Bender needs to be rejected as a candidate for the commission because (1) he doesn't represent Arizona thinking [he's even way left of the Dems], and, more importantly, (2) he's a public official. Being a public official [Bender serves as a judge for the Navajos], automatically disqualifies him from the IRC. There is no doubt that as a Navajo public official he will be biased towards the tribe [and even if he weren't biased, it doesn't look good--Caesar's wife and all]; and there is no doubt the tribe has skin in this game. Automatic disqualification. A blind man on a galloping horse could see this one coming.


Congrats! You nailed Araneta and now he is toast.


Araneta isn't a jerk, he is a genuinely good guy who attended Catholic school. It just shows you that common culture now has a hostile attitude towards Christianity such that it is almost forbidden. And, that many otherwise intelligent people are drifting towards alignment with that culture.

Great peace Greg! (Or would that be piece?) (Or, Pece?) Something phonetically like that at least.

The comments to this entry are closed.