Now there is a nominee that is very religious in a Christian faith. Does that impact people of other faiths? According to our constitution this seems to contradict the concept of freedom to worship or not. Since the duty of the Supreme Court is to address rule of law. How can that be if there is a members with strong religious convictions? What if all nine were atheists? Is the abortion argument largely religious?
There are no "religious tests" for government service. The First Amendment protects religious freedom. There have been eight Jewish Justices on SCOTUS, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There have been 14 Catholics, and the rest have been Protestant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Hardly surprising since the USA has been majority Christian, and still is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
Whether or not it "impacts people of other faiths" is going to be a matter of opinion. I personally could care less, as long as whomever is appointed holds to a strict constructionist view of Constitutional interpretation.
Senators can use whatever reason they want to vote against a candidate.
Now there is a nominee that is very religious in a Christian faith. Does that impact people of other faiths? According to our constitution this seems to contradict the concept of freedom to worship or not. Since the duty of the Supreme Court is to address rule of law. How can that be if there is a members with strong religious convictions? What if all nine were atheists? Is the abortion argument largely religious?
It seems odd that no Democrat-Socialist Senator considers competence when casting their vote on this.Senators can use whatever reason they want to vote against a candidate.
It shouldn't since judges should be ruling based on the law. Clearly some might be influenced by their personal beliefs but that can apply to anyone, not just the religious. That's probably part of the reason they have multiple judges and operate on the basis of majority decisions with narrative rulings explaining the legal basis for their conclusions. It's not a perfect system but nothing involving human beings ever is.Now there is a nominee that is very religious in a Christian faith. Does that impact people of other faiths?
Now there is a nominee that is very religious in a Christian faith. Does that impact people of other faiths? According to our constitution this seems to contradict the concept of freedom to worship or not. Since the duty of the Supreme Court is to address rule of law. How can that be if there is a members with strong religious convictions? What if all nine were atheists? Is the abortion argument largely religious?
They can be as religious as they want, but must separate that religious sense from their legal analysis which are wholly two different topics, otherwise they are incapable of truly doing their job.Now there is a nominee that is very religious in a Christian faith. Does that impact people of other faiths? According to our constitution this seems to contradict the concept of freedom to worship or not. Since the duty of the Supreme Court is to address rule of law. How can that be if there is a members with strong religious convictions? What if all nine were atheists? Is the abortion argument largely religious?
Can you provide any evidence that any religious Supreme Court Justice has ever ruled based on their religion?Now there is a nominee that is very religious in a Christian faith. Does that impact people of other faiths? According to our constitution this seems to contradict the concept of freedom to worship or not. Since the duty of the Supreme Court is to address rule of law. How can that be if there is a members with strong religious convictions? What if all nine were atheists? Is the abortion argument largely religious?
"Should Supreme Court Justices be religious?"
Now there is a nominee that is very religious in a Christian faith. Does that impact people of other faiths? According to our constitution this seems to contradict the concept of freedom to worship or not. Since the duty of the Supreme Court is to address rule of law. How can that be if there is a members with strong religious convictions? What if all nine were atheists? Is the abortion argument largely religious?
Where would an atheist get moral values from, if not from religion?
The problem I have with strict constructionists and originalists is they have their own opinion on what that means when it comes to the constitution. I have often read opinions by cons and even lib judges that say that their decision is based on one of those two ideas and yet when you read the writings of the actual authors of the constitution the opinions do not match up. In the end, most of the decisions are made according to the justices political sway, whether con or lib.There are no "religious tests" for government service. The First Amendment protects religious freedom. There have been eight Jewish Justices on SCOTUS, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There have been 14 Catholics, and the rest have been Protestant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Hardly surprising since the USA has been majority Christian, and still is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
Whether or not it "impacts people of other faiths" is going to be a matter of opinion. I personally could care less, as long as whomever is appointed holds to a strict constructionist view of Constitutional interpretation.
Everything is a religion. Atheism is a religion that doesn't believe in God. It would be disgusting that in a country founded on religious freedom that a Supreme Court Justice would be required to not be religious. If I remember correctly, the founders who founded the country based on religious freedom, also founded the Supreme court.Now there is a nominee that is very religious in a Christian faith. Does that impact people of other faiths? According to our constitution this seems to contradict the concept of freedom to worship or not. Since the duty of the Supreme Court is to address rule of law. How can that be if there is a members with strong religious convictions? What if all nine were atheists? Is the abortion argument largely religious?
So, from religion but once removed. This is not helping your position.Good parenting, evolved human empathy, learned ethical experience.
You just said learned ethical experience and you cavalierly discard all of philosophy, not to mention law.If you need a book to tell you how to be moral, your morals aren't worth the paper they're printed on and I'd never trust you to make the right decision.
There are no "religious tests" for government service. The First Amendment protects religious freedom. There have been eight Jewish Justices on SCOTUS, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There have been 14 Catholics, and the rest have been Protestant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Hardly surprising since the USA has been majority Christian, and still is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
Whether or not it "impacts people of other faiths" is going to be a matter of opinion. I personally could care less, as long as whomever is appointed holds to a strict constructionist view of Constitutional interpretation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?