╌>

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro suggests congresswoman's hijab means she is against US constitution

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  krishna  •  5 years ago  •  11 comments

 Fox News host Jeanine Pirro suggests congresswoman's hijab means she is against US constitution
A Fox News host close to Donald Trump has sparked bemusement and anger after suggesting Ilhan Omar’s decision to wear a hijab could mean she is opposed to the US constitution.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



512

A Fox News host close to Donald Trump has sparked bemusement and anger after suggesting Ilhan Omar’s decision to wear a hijab could mean she is opposed to the US constitution.

Judge Jeanine Pirro, a legal pundit for the US news channel, also accused the Somali-American congresswoman of being anti-Israel and a believer in sharia law.

“Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59 tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law? Which in itself is antithetical to the United States constitution?”

Despite Ms Pirro’s claims, there is no evidence Ms Omar has ever proposed sharia law or expressed opposition to the US constitution.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Krishna    5 years ago

Pirro is right, of course-- the U.S. Constitution clearly forbids freedom of religion in this country!!!!

 
 
 
MalamuteMan
Professor Quiet
1.1  MalamuteMan  replied to  Krishna @1    5 years ago
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Hey Krishna... Please forgive my pedantic nature... but your comment seem intended to provoke argument... No??? Or perhaps it is just intended as a splash of sarcasm to my naive eyes...

Honestly, I don't know how you can pay any attention at all to the Fox propaganda machine.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MalamuteMan @1.1    5 years ago

You are correct--- I was just trying to stir things up a bit. It was sarcasm--- I should've indicated that but was feeling a bit mischievous :^).

Pirro's comment was so incredibly stupid...(although that sort of thing has become so common now-a-days...)

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
2  FLYNAVY1    5 years ago

Closer to the truth is the fact that Pirro is on the FOX payroll which has a clear record of not understanding the US Constitution.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  JBB    5 years ago

Fox's Propagandists, like Pirro, would make Tokyo Rose and Axis Annie blush...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4  Tacos!    5 years ago

I shudder a bit at the notion of this woman being an actual judge. So many assumptions made and all of them negative.

On the other hand, I am curious about what people think of Pirro judging Omar's loyalty to the Constitution based on her religion compared to other similar examples. There has been some outrage lately about Congressional Democrats questioning nominees about their religion and how it impacts their ability to follow the Constitution. It seems to me that if it's wrong to indict people for their religion in one situation, it should always be wrong. I'm thinking that's why it's in the Constitution.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  Tacos! @4    5 years ago

I understand, and to some extent I would actually beg the question of her religion interfering with her standing on constitutional matters of another follower of Islam v. a follower of another religion or of one of her own religious members.

Pirro ham handed what could be a good discussion.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @4    5 years ago
There has been some outrage lately about Congressional Democrats questioning nominees about their religion and how it impacts their ability to follow the Constitution. It seems to me that if it's wrong to indict people for their religion in one situation, it should always be wrong.

But here's the difference: The way our government is set-up (in the Constitution)  Senators are allowed to question presidential nominees to some offices-- for example The Supreme Court. And they have the power to confirm or not to confirm them.

In fact it goes beyond merely "being allowed" to question them and then decide whether they will confirm them or not-- its mandated!

Why? because the Constitution set it up so that there are 3 co-equal branches of government-- each is supposed to act as a check on the other two branches. Congress'  is to act as a check on excessive power by the president. (So, for example, the Senate questions Supreme Court nominees and must vote to confirm them-- or decide not to).

OTOH, the way the Constitution set up the government, members of the House are elected, not appointed Its not a case of them being appointed and then having to be confirmed-- the voters choice gets the position-- so Senate confirmation necessary.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
6  bbl-1    5 years ago

Pirro is merely mouthing the conservative line.  And this too:  Whenever conservatives accuse, claim or say others are doing something...….the verbiage from the 'mouth maw' is designed to deflect from the conservative intentions.  Pirro despises the freedoms and protections afforded by The US Constitution.

Must add this;  Conservatism is dead.  The moniker still lives but it is now something quite different.  A W.F. Buckley or even a Barry Goldwater would use The Second Amendment protections against these new so called 'christo/oligarch' leaning faux conservatives. 

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred
zuksam
Kavika


92 visitors