Jump to content

SCOTUS and whatnot


pfife

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

you have a choice to make as to where you look for "supreme law". It's institutional Catholicism which creates the issue with threats to deny sacraments to or excommunicate  those in political power if they don't toe the doctrinal line, so don't act like this isn't an issue of their own making.

right.  that's why we can't elect Al Smith or John Kennedy.  they can't be trusted.

do you think the same thing about Muslim judges (there is one now!  lol)  or just Catholics?  Mormons?  

or - maybe the more appropriate question - do they just need to agree with you on abortion and your interpretation of the establishment clause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, buddha said:

right.  that's why we can't elect Al Smith or John Kennedy.  they can't be trusted.

do you think the same thing about Muslim judges (there is one now!  lol)  or just Catholics?  Mormons?  

or - maybe the more appropriate question - do they just need to agree with you on abortion and your interpretation of the establishment clause?

I've already stated clearly the criteria I prefer - it's allegiance to law as promulgated by a constitutional process over received religious doctrine.  If a Muslim won't swear allegiance to the Constitution over the Koran honestly he should be excluded just as much as any Catholic or Evangelical or Hindu or Sikh or Bahia or Buddhist or anything else that doesn't take the oath honestly.

If you recall, John Kennedy did actually make a promise to the public during his election campaign in that regard.

Quote

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. - JFK - 9/12/1960

have any of our current examples ever made a statement like this?

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I've already stated clearly the criteria I prefer - it's allegiance to law as promulgated by a constitutional process over received religious doctrine.  If a Muslim won't swear allegiance to the Constitution over the Koran honestly he should be excluded just as much as any Catholic or Evangelical or Hindu or Sikh or Bahia or Buddhist or anything else that doesn't take the oath honestly.

If you recall, John Kennedy did actually make a promise to the public during his election campaign in that regard.

have any of our current examples ever made a statement like this?

ACB and scalia did swear an oath to uphold the constitution, so your problem with them is that you don't believe them because you think you dont agree with their legal rulings on some issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddha said:

ACB and scalia did swear an oath to uphold the constitution, so your problem with them is that you don't believe them because you think you dont agree with their legal rulings on some issues.

Lol. Scalia made it clear enough over the years In his public statements that he didn’t take that oath seriously when it came to religion

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

And of course you know well  that no jurist on any GOP short list would make a statement like Kennedy’s today as they would instantly be off that short list. 

Right.  The problem Kennedy faced wasn’t anti religion. It was Catholic bigotry among evangelicals, the very same lot that today are joined at the hip politically with many Catholics due to abortion and other culture wars.  MLK Sr even publicly said he wouldn’t vote for him until bobby for Jr out of jail in the south. “MLK Jr’s father is a bigot eh?  Well we all have fathers don’t we?”  They don’t fear Rome like they used to because they help out with abortion.  They can also jointly play up the “the world went to hell when they took prayer out of schools” canard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

And of course you know well  that no jurist on any GOP short list would make a statement like Kennedy’s today as they would instantly be off that short list. 

but you dont really care about that statement, you care that she doesnt support casey or your version of how the establishment clause should be interpreted.  

there isnt anything about being a very religious practicing catholic that should prevent one from being a capable supreme court judge.  

ask william brennan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, oblong said:

Right.  The problem Kennedy faced wasn’t anti religion. It was Catholic bigotry among evangelicals, the very same lot that today are joined at the hip politically with many Catholics due to abortion and other culture wars.  MLK Sr even publicly said he wouldn’t vote for him until bobby for Jr out of jail in the south. “MLK Jr’s father is a bigot eh?  Well we all have fathers don’t we?”  They don’t fear Rome like they used to because they help out with abortion.  They can also jointly play up the “the world went to hell when they took prayer out of schools” canard. 

and what was the "argument" they used against kennedy (and al smith, for that matter)?

he was beholden to the pope.  basically the same argument that g2 made about barrett and scalia not being able to be judges. 

i imagine g2 thinks barrett and scalia should not be on the supreme court because he thinks their opinions are wrong, which is a perfectly good reason for anyone to think they shouldnt be on the court.  but because theyre religious?  nyah.  plenty of religious folks have been really good justices, both conservative and liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, buddha said:

and what was the "argument" they used against kennedy (and al smith, for that matter)?

he was beholden to the pope.  basically the same argument that g2 made about barrett and scalia not being able to be judges. 

i imagine g2 thinks barrett and scalia should not be on the supreme court because he thinks their opinions are wrong, which is a perfectly good reason for anyone to think they shouldnt be on the court.  but because theyre religious?  nyah.  plenty of religious folks have been really good justices, both conservative and liberal.

Back then they really did fear the pope and Rome. They literally thought Catholics were not real Christians. Not all Protestants but the hard core Baptists and people like that. Today I have the position has softened to simply theological differences vs good and evil like it was back then.  
 

there are degrees of religious devotion that people display and I think it’s fair to ask. Most people who go to church just go to church or temple or mosque and that’s that.  They went to the denomination they grew up in or married into. Then there’s the level where you put verses on signatures and quote a holy text for justification for something. I don’t know if Scalia or Barrett do that. I don’t pay attention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, buddha said:

and what was the "argument" they used against kennedy (and al smith, for that matter)?

he was beholden to the pope.  basically the same argument that g2 made about barrett and scalia not being able to be judges. 

i imagine g2 thinks barrett and scalia should not be on the supreme court because he thinks their opinions are wrong, which is a perfectly good reason for anyone to think they shouldnt be on the court.  but because theyre religious?  nyah.  plenty of religious folks have been really good justices, both conservative and liberal.

Lol. You are the one fixated on abortion. All I want is exactly what I stated, which is judges willing to subordinate whatever they may believe as religious teaching to the supremacy of a system of secularly derived law. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Lol. You are the one fixated on abortion. All I want is exactly what I stated, which is judges willing to subordinate whatever they may believe as religious teaching to the supremacy of a system of secularly derived law. 

well....that was what the article you quoted that pfife posted was about.  i figured you read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddha said:

well....that was what the article you quoted that pfife posted was about.  i figured you read it.

The topic of the article was whether ACB was going to follow the advice she was once happy to dispense to others that judges facing decisions where existing law and personal religious belief conflict should recuse. Barrett's topic at the time was the death penalty and here the writer (S. Sherry) re-framed the question wrt Abortion. However, the question of judges who profess fealty to higher standards of impartiality but then abandon them when facing the chance to advance  their own political/religious agenda is certainly broader than just abortion. 

You can certainly criticize a Douglas for text as mushy as 'emanations of penumbras' but even mushy secular arguments are less dangerous to the republic than those whose real premises are religious.

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The topic of the article was whether ACB was going to follow the advice she was once happy to dispense to others that judges facing decisions where existing law and personal religious belief conflict should recuse. Barrett's topic at the time was the death penalty and here the writer (S. Sherry) re-framed the question wrt Abortion. However, the question of judges who profess fealty to higher standards of impartiality but then abandon them when facing the chance to advance  their own political/religious agenda is certainly broader than just abortion. 

You can certainly criticize a Douglas for text as mushy as 'emanations of penumbras' but even mushy secular arguments are less dangerous to the republic than those whose real premises are religious.

right.  it was about the author of that piece's opinion that barrett should recuse herself from abortion cases based on an old law review article barrett wrote.

its funny how liberals were all about how judges needed to bring their own personal opinions and experiences to every decision when sotomayor testified to such effect in her confirmation hearings when talking about her take on discrimination cases.  not so much when its barrett talking about abortion cases.  and the same is true of conservatives when the situation was flipped.

i dont think you have to be an atheist to interpret the constitution or read a law.  as i said before, plenty of religious justices have done so in ways that you presumably agreed with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddha said:

right.  it was about the author of that piece's opinion that barrett should recuse herself from abortion cases based on an old law review article barrett wrote.

its funny how liberals were all about how judges needed to bring their own personal opinions and experiences to every decision when sotomayor testified to such effect in her confirmation hearings when talking about her take on discrimination cases.  not so much when its barrett talking about abortion cases.  and the same is true of conservatives when the situation was flipped.

i dont think you have to be an atheist to interpret the constitution or read a law.  as i said before, plenty of religious justices have done so in ways that you presumably agreed with.

No, you don't have to be an atheist, but you should always argue as if it's an atheist that you have to persuade of the soundness of your reasoning.

Edited by gehringer_2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

No, you don't have to be an atheist, but you should always argue as if it's an atheist that you have to persuade of the soundness of your reasoning.

clarence darrow and oliver wendall holmes' intellectual lovechild couldnt persuade you that youre wrong, what chance does a mere mortal like amy coney barrett have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, buddha said:

clarence darrow and oliver wendall holmes' intellectual lovechild couldnt persuade you that youre wrong, what chance does a mere mortal like amy coney barrett have?

If you can't make an argument that doesn't depend on some kind of mystically revealed 'truth', you shouldn't be given authority over the local dog pound let alone a superior court in a polyglot nation. I don't care what any judge believes when they have their robes off, I just don't want to be able to figure it out from their decisions. That's what the oath to the Constitution should promise to every American, the majority of whom are neither Catholic nor Evangelical, Muslim, Jewish or anything else.

And for that matter it's also simple politics, the nation claims to be majority deist by survey, but no organized church or doctrine is supported by more than a minority. It's a historical habit of mind of Catholics and more recently Evangelicals to forget that many people believe in God but come to vastly different answers to many questions than they do.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

If you can't make an argument that doesn't depend on some kind of mystically revealed 'truth', you shouldn't be given authority over the local dog pound let alone a superior court in a polyglot nation. I don't care what any judge believes when they have their robes off, I just don't want to be able to figure it out from their decisions. That's what the oath to the Constitution should promise to every American, the majority of whom are neither Catholic nor Evangelical, Muslim, Jewish or anything else.

And for that matter it's also simple politics, the nation claims to be majority deist by survey, but no organized church or doctrine is supported by more than a minority. It's a historical habit of mind of Catholics and more recently Evangelicals to forget that many people believe in God but come to vastly different answers to many questions than they do.

The anti-casey/roe argument does not rest on a "mystical revealed truth," but rather on a different interpretation of an 18th century legal document.  

And its an historical habit of mind for lots of people to forget that many other people come to different interpretations of the same facts or beliefs as they do for perfectly logical reasons and not for the continuation of some nefarious plot to convert the non-believer.  see the above paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, buddha said:

The anti-casey/roe argument does not rest on a "mystical revealed truth," but rather on a different interpretation of an 18th century legal document.  

Be that as it may, as a practical matter the driving political force against Roe is a religious doctrine about the nature of human life. If/when a new rationale emerges regarding the regulation of abortion I'd prefer it be based on reasoning detached from any particular religious dogma. I don't think that is too much to ask. 

Curiously, I happened across some biographical information on Rousseau the other day. It noted that in pre-Revolutionary France it was apparently quite common for the results of unwanted pregnancies to be abandoned at the Paris Foundling Hospital, where apparently nearly all of them died. Not much new under the Sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Be that as it may, as a practical matter the driving political force against Roe is a religious doctrine about the nature of human life. If/when a new rationale emerges regarding the regulation of abortion I'd prefer it be based on reasoning detached from any particular religious dogma. I don't think that is too much to ask. 

Curiously, I happened across some biographical information on Rousseau the other day. It noted that in pre-Revolutionary France it was apparently quite common for the results of unwanted pregnancies to be abandoned at the Paris Foundling Hospital, where apparently nearly all of them died. Not much new under the Sun.

the infant mortality rate in france was about 35% back then, so a lot of babies died.  also, abortion was a felony punishable by death, so maybe a lot has changed under the sun?

one could argue that all of our american conceptions of morality derive from christian religious dogma, but whatever.  i'm not religious at all and would have no problem outlawing abortion after 15 weeks.  i'm not that concerned about who is perceived to be the driving force behind the attempt to change a law if i think that law needs to be changed.

and dont worry, overruling casey wont stop the baby killing.  blue states will welcome abortion seekers with open arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how we want to take religion out of everything yet all of our founding documents have God written all over them. Currency, Capital Building, Supreme Court etc God.... I know once all of the historically questionable statues come down anything God related in the Government will be next. Don't you take the oath of office with your hand on a bible? I am not trying to ba a bible thumper but why is it so important NOT to reflect on a moral foundation? The 10 Commandments are a pretty reasonable way to guide your life no matter what you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t have to use a Bible. Most people do. Some people used a Koran and some Trumpies lost their shit over it… thinking their swearing in wasn’t legit. 
 

religious teachings should never be the basis for a law or ruling.  The best example I can think of in recent times is gay rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...