How Important are Religious Views of Supreme Court Judges
Some liberal people in Congress have asked pointed questions about the religious views of potential Federal Court appointees. They are roundly criticized for asking these questions by conservatives. There is a need, however, to try to get into the heads of these candidates. Their religious views are not as important as whether they know the difference between reality and religious fantasy.
I'm not a legal scholar but I like it where the link points out our laws should be based on reality. To base them on dead people coming back to life or one fertilized cell is a human being is foreign to a modern country. We might expect that dreams and visions were mixed up with reality in the middle ages but there should be enough rationality in the head of a potential Supreme Court nominee to see that dreams or invisible gods are not reality.
I've heard that the current Trump nominee facies herself as a second Justice Scalia. In 2013 Justice Scalia was asked by a journalist if he believed in a literal hell and devil. He answered, "Of course I do, don't you?" When the journalist answered she did not he replied, "Oh my."
It is not clear that these views of Justice Scalia directly influenced his views on cases but it is alarming nevertheless. He did not say, at least in that interview, these are religious views that are outside the realm of law. What he did say more than once was that religious views, especially his, should be allowed to prevail in many circumstances others would find odd in a country with many religious views.
We all know the BIG religious question is abortion and overturning Roe. No doubt there are secular arguments about "states rights" that might include the right of states to ban abortions. But allowing states the rights to regulate everything would mean the Federal Government could not impose standards for safe highways, airline travel, medicine and so on. I would think using states rights to narrowly release abortion would be difficult. It may not be impossible.
The anti abortion industry has been successful in using fake arguments about abortion safety and requiring rituals prior to abortion that make it more expensive. Even though the industry has been successful in this women's rights groups have been building data using science to block some of this mischief. The shelf life of this anti abortion industry trickery may have run out.
One thing that has been said often, true or not I don't know, is that Supreme Court Justices are very aware of polling data and election outcomes. If this is true we might see the Court shifting ever so slightly after the November election.
Jon, wake up and smell the coffee and then read the US Constitution. Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
ReplyDeleteUS Senator Diane Feinstein ran roughshod over Articl VI when questioning Amy Coney Barrett when she was up for the Appellate Court. Then DiFi had the gall to state, "You are controversial.
You have a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail. When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”
The left looks at the US Constitution as toilet paper standing in their way, but not for long. Democrats are Totalitarians and religious bigots.
Matt -- "Jon, wake and smell the coffee and then read the US Constitution.."
DeleteFeinstein was addressing another part of the Constitution has tells us the government shall not establish one religion. If, for example, a Justice can't stop him/her self from ruling against abortion because of the religious view one fertilized cell is a human being that is a violation.
This will be sorted out better when the Satanists or some other religion start making the same demands as Christians to have their beliefs codified into law. That will be the time when you will need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Nice try.
Deletegotta give him credit: he is a rather creative sophist.
ReplyDeleteHis arguments have no bearing in rational thought. He ignores the US Constitution as if he were the ghost of Ginsburg. Ginsburg, however, might have actually defended Article VI. The basis for Roe v. Wade is not found in the US Constitution, i.e. the right to "privacy". Murder? No, I did it in "private" and I have a right privacy. If I murder someone in private, it is not murder because I have a right to privacy. Roe is still on a collision course with itself.
DeleteMatt--"Murder" You keep using that phrase as if killing one fertilized cell is technically and legally murder. It is not. Please stop telling these lies.
Delete"murder" is, of course, a very elastic term, both legally and ethically. w/o going into a longwinded discussion of the matter I would point out, quite simply, that killing of a fetus is objectively, by definition, a species of homicide, specifically feticide. whether or not one is legally or morally guilty of feticide depends on several factors, culpability, medical necessity and the like. we have indeed been thru all this before. in any event, feticide is legal in many countries, the US especially. and then there is embryocide (sp?). ditto. but we have been down this road many times. so why go on? what puzzles me, tho' is why you continue to insist that Matt is lying, asserting, in essence that he is making a statement that he knows to be untrue. I can assure you that that is not the case. he is making what be believes to be a rational assertion, an assertion which he could defend, whether empirically or rationally. He could, in fact, make a better case for his position than you can with your disingenuous prattle about one fertilized cell. All of which brings me to a major point: you have no ability to reach beyond or, more importantly, behind yourself when carrying on a discussion. that shortcoming, I attribute mostly to your education. you seeming were never given much in the way of intellectual perspective (i.e. the ability to question your own assumptions, the inability to understand a wide rage of views). thus the parroting of the same old bromides.
DeleteUnknown "you seemingly were never given much in the way of intellectual perspective. (ie the ability to question your own assumptions, the inability to understand a wide rage of views"
DeleteMy my, coming from someone who has been asked repeatedly this question, "Exactly what rights does the pregnant woman have in a no abortion world other than giving birth?" and never come up with even the most feeble answer I think you have labeled yourself the non intellectual. Trying looking, just once, at abortion from the woman's point of view and from men and children who depend on her.
testing
ReplyDelete