Senator Booker “Would Disqualify Moses Himself,” Rabbis Say

In questioning judicial nominee Neomi Rao this past week, Senator Cory Booker asked her repeatedly if she believed same-gender relationships to be sinful, and expressed surprise that she declined to comment on her personal views.
Article VI of the US Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Inquiring about personal religious beliefs during a nominee hearing implies those would factor into the decision, which would violate that clause.

Rabbi Pesach Lerner, President of the Coalition for Jewish Values, made the following statement:
“It is outrageous that Senator Booker would use religion as a weapon with which to exclude an eminently well-qualified candidate from public service, and not only because factoring in a candidate’s personal religious views violates Article VI of the Constitution. The Bible expressly declares homosexual activity to be sinful, so the Senator would apparently disqualify Moses himself, the original judge, from holding that office — much less anyone in our day who adheres to the same Biblical values that our nation’s founding fathers held dear.”

The Coalition for Jewish Values is a rabbinic public policy organization in America, articulating and advocating for public policy positions based upon traditional Jewish thought.



  1. What does Moshe Rabbeinu have to do with all of this?
    Besides, he would be obviously (and correctly) be disqualified, for not being a citizen of the USA.

    Oh wait, it says “traditional”…. now I understand better.

  2. Corney Booker is a loud-mouth Idiot who got elected because he’s almost black and he was able to fool enough Jews before turning on them. Booker is a very low-life. He’s not Spartacus, he’s Smarty-ass.

  3. There’s a big safek in my mind about the right way to deal with these kind lf issues…on the lne hand, fighting “on their terms” is practically, in terms of hishtadlus, more convincing and powerful.. Like in this case we have a rather clear constitutional argument – that’s something they can’t brush aside. Perhaps mentioning Torah sources can give them the opportunity to dismiss us as simply arguing from a religious perspective and not a legal one.

    On the other hand, the pitfalls with that approach are that we might be ignoring kovod shomayim, we also might become enamored by American legal argumentative methods and lose sight – even for a moment – of Hashem’s imperatives.

    Doing both seems reasonable – while I would think that mentioning Moshe rabbeinu in that way may be a bit much, it elicits a stronger response than just the usual “dedication to family values” theme that our askonim often use.

    Just thinking out loud..

  4. To anonymous; why must we tell the rabbonim what to do?

    While I obviously sound like i was doing the same, I’m talking about askonim, not gedolei yisroel..r. lerner has accomplished a great deal, but i was referring to our Torah leaders and authorities

  5. This, and this only: cease to call [anti heterosexual marriage]
    wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them.. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to [anti heterosexual marriage], before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.”

    “Wrong as we think [anti heterosexual marriage]
    can we allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored – contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man – such as a policy of ‘don’t care’ on a question about which all true men do care….”
    I can’t get this phrase out of my mind: “groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man – such as a policy of ‘don’t care’ on a question about which all true men do care.”
    In a few short words, he transforms himself from forceful, effective advocate to true leader, speaking to the difficulties both he and his audience had in blending a serious-but-secular obligation (fealty to the Constitution) together with a universal one of principle
    . Lincoln tells his audience what they most need to hear: that the law and morality can and must coexist, that there are some things where there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong.

    [anti heterosexual marriage]was wrong, their cause was noble, and they were on the side of the angels.
    “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.

  6. Booker is a real Rasha. Make no mistake about it. I would suggest not even looking at his face. Lo histachael b’panim shel reshaim.

    Everything should be done to make sure he never advances in his political career.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here