Religion on the Supreme Court

[welsh]

Ok, here's a question- should a person's religion make a difference in getting on the Supreme Court?

According to Bush, it does matter.

What do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/miers.ap/index.html

Bush: Religion factor in Miers pick

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

I think the problem with Miers is that she's a crony. Sure she will do what Bush wants for the next three years, but she will probably be on the court a lot longer.

Ok, that and the problem of competence.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts."

He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.

So religion matters? Does this mean a person shouldn't get on the court of they were-
Jewish,
Catholic,
Mormon,
or, heaven forbid, athiest?

Continuing controversy
Not even a congressional recess nor Bush's preoccupation with hurricane recovery and affairs of state have shrouded the continuing controversy surrounding his selection of Miers to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Yes, because Harriet's got the problem that is consistent with Bush- incompetence.

Even conservatives are criticizing him for this.

Debate about Miers' credentials was prominent on the Sunday television talk shows and has continued to occupy considerable attention on the Internet.

Some of Bush's conservative critics say Miers has no judicial record that proves she will strictly interpret the Constitution and not -- as Bush says -- "legislate from the bench." They argue that Bush passed up other more qualified candidates to nominate someone from his inner circle.

Crony.

Miers is Bush's second pick for the court. He chose John Roberts for the bench, initially to succeed O'Connor but then gave Roberts the nod for chief justice when William H. Rehnquist died. Roberts was confirmed by the Senate on a vote of 78-22.

Dobson: No assurances
On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on October 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him "she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life," but denied he had gotten any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said: "The rest of America, including the Senate, deserves to know what he and the White House know."

It's going to be hard to review her record when she doesn't have one.

Ok, to be fair- non-judges have made it to the court before. But Miers?

"We don't confirm justices of the Supreme Court on a wink and a nod. And a litmus test is no less a litmus test by using whispers and signals," the Vermont senator said. "No political faction should be given a monopoly of relevant knowledge about a nomination, just as no faction should be permitted to hound a nominee to withdraw, before the hearing process has even begun."

Earlier Wednesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asserted that Miers would bring "a unique brand of experience" to the high court and that the concerns of critics would be eased once more is known about her.

WHat is unique is the inexperience.

Gonzales, himself once considered a leading candidate for a Supreme Court vacancy, said there is "nothing unique or earth shattering" about Miers' nomination and said people should give her time to say who she is and what she believes.

Prospective nominees withdraw
Also, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan acknowledged there were some prospective candidates who told the White House they preferred not to be considered, citing the ordeal of the confirmation process.

"Washington scares people away? Is that new?" McClellan asked. "There are plenty of good people willing to be considered. The president found the best person."

Once again, the spin is out. Meirs is the best person? What are they smoking?

McClellan later said that "it was just a couple of people" who asked that their names be withdrawn, and it happened when the field of candidates was "in the double digits." He declined to say whether "a couple" meant just two -- or more.

Asked why Rove would have discussed Miers' religious views if the president ascribes to a conservative judicial philosophy that backs a strict interpretation of the Constitution regardless of one's views on various issues, McClellan said it was just part of an "outreach" to help people get to know Miers.

"What we have seen so far," Leahy said, "is more of a commentary on the litmus tests and narrow motivations of vocal factions on the Republican right than it is a commentary on the qualifications of Harriet Miers."

Eh gawd. Ok, I mean I can understand giving the job of head of FEMA to a business associate with no experience. But the Supreme Court is kind of important, in a "one of the three branches of government" kind of way.

 

[SmithWesen]

I wonder if anyone is going to vote "yes"

 

[Tannhauser]

Of course, all members of the Supreme Court should be required to be atheists. Nothing like religion to muddle with the issues, all because of one person's interpretation of someone else's arbitrary writing.

Only kidding, somewhat. Of course religion should not factor into the equation, neither should politics, it should be decided upon their competence as a judge and their ability to fulfill the duties required by them. But, such considerations have been of secondary importance for my entire lifetime (for rather all appointed posts, competence is an accident rather than design).

 

[Wooz]

Schools, City/town administration institutions, and courts should be laic. Anybody in them might be the religion they well please, as long as they don't use their job to propagate it or to make impartial judgements based on it.

The Paris Commune existed for a reason, you know?

 

[4too]

Mixed Message

Mixed Message



Why religion matters.

This evening's NPR radio broadcast had a sound bite of a White House flack haranguing some members of the Press when they centered questions on this friend of W's religious affiliations.

The White House is talking out of all sides of it's mouth.

Every channel of communication, official and unofficial.

Already , some orifice that can squeak cogently has leaked that among Miers' qualifications is her association with a conservative evangelical church. Her 'leanings' on wedge issues and her 'potential' to ""properly"" legislate from the bench are poured on the stormy reflexes of judicial conservative cliques.


The Press men were not ''playing ball'' and letting the focus move to her legal and
personal integrity qualifications. The White House wants other constituents to ponder Miers' professional links, not her - private - , "'crony"' ties.

Oh, and she IS FEMALE, that seems to matter, too.

The White House has bundled a variety of missives for selective audiences. The damage control by the official mouthes whining about the focus ""on religion"" reflects the smoke and mirrors OF ALL POLITICIANS in this media age. They hate being "caught" explaining their mixed messages. Hate taking responsibility for the confusion on where they -- really -- stand when adults try to connect all the dots. All the factoids that masquerade as information are the sweet talk tailored to discrete interest groups.
Bite sized, predigested, little balls of propaganda manipulating the minds and thus the motions of as many that will buy the party line.


The republican information machine has already let those that care in the conservative coalition know just how QUALIFIED A CHRISTIAN Miers is. Channeling to the psychics in the ""Talk Radio"" medium,
the 'spiritual' crowd is massaged.


When filtered through the reality of the '''culture wars"', school boy jingoism about what "ought"" or "'should"" be qualifiers for the Supreme Court are left crying in some sophomoric wilderness.

The religion of a Supreme Court nominee matters because, ...

Wouldn't YOU want to know the spiritual roots of a nominees' values.
Sure you would, my brave voyeurs, we all LOVE to watch.

Oh, and in these heady days of the "culture wars", the conservatives take it as given that only THEY have values, (that matter). Much like the "New Deal" paragons when Roosevelt - tried - to pack the Court.

The religion of a Supreme Court nominee matters because, ...

The candidate's religion MATTERS TO GEORGE W. BUSH and the conservative coalition he rode in on.

Miers may look like a poker chip, a pawn, or a deuce in the high stakes game of pleasing the conservative base. Might be ""Borked"" by the right and the left extremists. But. If (When) she is nominated she becomes a Queen in the political deck. She becomes a ""play-ah"" in this triumvirate circus of government.

Whether she might tend to tip the scales of Justice one way or the other, whether she 'stacks the deck' in favor of any single ideological agenda is only known for sure by [insert your deity's name(s) here].

So maybe YOUR religion matters too.





4too

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I wont respect religion as an establishment in the American system of government until I see a substantial or even representative mix of the religions found in the US. In other words...if someone must be religious to represent the nation in the supreme court than shouldnt half of them be Catholic?

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[4too]

Quota System

Quota System


The_Vault_Dweller:

... shouldnt half of them be Catholic ...

Affirmative action for that flavor of conservative christian is not openly ""PC"" in the GOP.

Yet the gender issue seems universally ""PC"", some of all parties minced out that the vacant seat was once warmed by one with 'child bearing hips' , so the next body must, must, must, conform to a definite profile. According to some folklore and or superstitions that style of DNA bag has the proper body fat distribution to float face up if drowned.




4too

 

[John Uskglass]

The Paris Commune existed for a reason, you know?

You are quite right. We must be weary that we do not loose a war with Prussia.

No, unless the answer is one of the below:
Any Kind of Humanist
Unitarian Universalist
Atheist
Agnostic
Freethinker
Wiccan
Neopagan

 

[Tannhauser]

Satanists are okay, CCR?

 

[John Uskglass]

Satanists are okay, CCR?

Depends. Le Vey Satanists are just you fruity Humanists dressed up for Halloween, but there where some okay Gnostic sects that could be described as 'Satanic', not to mention the Mandeans.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

I try to remain apathetic when it comes to politics but I think this country has gotten to up tight on the seperation of church and state. I would say that i would support a supreme court justice more if i knew that he/she were a christian. It would give me reason to think they had a good moral understanding.

 

[Murdoch]

No, unless the answer is one of the below:
Any Kind of Humanist
Unitarian Universalist
Atheist
Agnostic
Freethinker
Wiccan
Neopagan

How absurd CCR. Religion doesn't matter unless the person in question does not belong to one of the Major World Religions. Which I'll extrapolate to mean that as long as they take their religious views from a pre-formed mono- or polytheistic dogma, their religion is relevent. So why don't you just say YES it does matter and stop prevaricating.

 

[Lukus]

In short, I personally think that anyone affliated with organized religion should not be allowed in supreme court.

For a personal reference, it's much like it is with Organists or preists, only the other way around. In Sweden, there's a shortage of Organists, and the pay can be pretty good (at least from my eyes as unemployed and poor). I applied for a few Organist jobs - though I'm not religious I would enjoy working with church music - but was rejected to all only since I am not a member of the Swedish Church. And you know what, I understand those who think that atheists have nothing to do in the Church, even though I could perform the work tasks just as well as a religious organist. In the same way, religious people have nothing to do in the administrative part of a court, in my opinion. The church is a place of faith; court is a place of rationality.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

In short, I personally think that anyone affliated with organized religion should not be allowed in supreme court.

For a personal reference, it's much like it is with Organists or preists, only the other way around. In Sweden, there's a shortage of Organists, and the pay can be pretty good (at least from my eyes as unemployed and poor). I applied for a few Organist jobs - though I'm not religious I would enjoy working with church music - but was rejected to all only since I am not a member of the Swedish Church. And you know what, I understand those who think that atheists have nothing to do in the Church, even though I could perform the work tasks just as well as a religious organist. In the same way, religious people have nothing to do in the administrative part of a court, in my opinion. The church is a place of faith; court is a place of rationality.

While I do not think that religion should be used in such a politically correct way, I cannot agree with your assumptions. While courts should be a place of rationality, you are assuming that all religious people are unable to subsume their own religious beliefs in order to perform a clear and impartial decision. I hate to break it to you Luke, but there are no 'rational' people in existence. People possess prejudices and subconcious biases to an astounding degree, and religion is only one among many. Political alignment, ethnicity (if people get worked up about it), economic background, parental background, Internet affiliation, whatever. An atheist can be just as dogmatic as any other person in how they might have prejudices and biases. To cede control of court to a certain class, religion, or any other group would be an absurd travesty of the idea of *impartial* justice. So long as a person keeps to the relevant facts, no one should be BANNED outright for their beliefs.

The fact that you are a moderator of such a perverted group as The Order would ban you just as handily as any cultist, I would think.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Thats dumb that they turned you down Luke.

If they NEED an organist then why turn one down of a different faith? The fact is having someone who disagrees doesnt detract from their belief in any way unless they feel they NEED to make it an issue.

For example anyone and everyone is welcome in a Catholic Church. It's not like the presence of someone evil will somehow detract from the atmosphere as it can only have a positive effect on them.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Lukus]

I hate to break it to you Luke, but there are no 'rational' people in existence.

That's relative, since the term 'rational' would never be used if it referred only to some pure form of "true rationality", which a human (or any other being, for that matter) can quite naturally never be of. The definition I was referring to was 'of sound mind; sane'.

People possess prejudices and subconcious biases to an astounding degree, and religion is only one among many. Political alignment, ethnicity (if people get worked up about it), economic background, parental background, Internet affiliation, whatever.

Well, duh, you didn't honestly think I don't realize this, did you now?

But consider a judge who is slightly biased against white folks accused of rape, since his own daughter was raped up the butt by a white man. Ok for court or not? I think so. Then consider if he would also be a member of a racist/anti-white organization and enjoy leisure time activities such as writing racist articles, and leading discussion groups about how white people should be whiped off the surface of the earth.

An atheist can be just as dogmatic as any other person in how they might have prejudices and biases.

Absolutely, in how they might have. Everyone is obviously biased one way or another, to me it's a question of to what extent. If an atheist is also a registered black-belt chikan, it goes to show how his(/her, hehe) persona is not suitable for court. Same thing if someone is psychologically instable.

To cede control of court to a certain class, religion, or any other group would be an absurd travesty of the idea of *impartial* justice. So long as a person keeps to the relevant facts, no one should be BANNED outright for their beliefs.

Rly? So as long as everything goes down 'according to protocol', you would be comfortable with a neo-nazi judge?

The fact that you are a moderator of such a perverted group as The Order would ban you just as handily as any cultist, I would think.

And what exactly is this supposed to mean? (For the record, I'm not a moderator but a Senator, meaning that I vote in polls and propose bills regarding how things are run, but do not directly administer the board.)

Bottom line to me is that if a God can tell some terrorist to blow himself up in the middle of a crowd, or the president of the United States to go to war for that matter, he can also easily tell a judge how to do his job. Which is, if you ask me, fucked up.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Luke, you seem to have some deep inborn hatred for religion in any form. Not all people declare that God alone determines law, that religion comes before justice, and other such qualities. By lumping people together in one group "Oh, all you silly religious people" you are in effec tthen one of the most prejudiced of people with your stereotypes. of course, because if you believe in God, why you MUST be insane...

 

[Lukus]

Luke, you seem to have some deep inborn hatred for religion in any form.

Thank you for ignoring what I said and drawing a completely stupid conclusion from what you didn't read. I don't have any 'deep inborn hatred' for religion. *sigh* I'm not trying to force my belief on you, I'm only trying to make you understand what I think, which you seem to fail to grasp. Let's try again.

Not all people declare that God alone determines law, that religion comes before justice, and other such qualities.

Be that as it may, but a deeply religious person is at much higher risk of 'hearing voices' than a non-religious person. If someone thinks he/she can actually communicate with God, and God would happen to tell them something, I'm wagering they would put 'the word of god' directly spoken to them above all else.

By lumping people together in one group "Oh, all you silly religious people" you are in effec tthen one of the most prejudiced of people with your stereotypes. of course, because if you believe in God, why you MUST be insane...

I didn't say all people who believe in God are insane, and I don't think so either.

So I lump people together - you don't? Though you are probably going to continue your trend of ignoring my questions, you don't think nazis or terrorists are kind of bad? Well, I think that organized religion is kind of bad. Faith is one thing; the belief in 'something' divine, that it's all not just coincidence or whatever - I have no problem with that. Faith becomes a problem when people lump themselves up, signs the values of the same organized belief, and transfer it to their children like with the Hitler jugends. Organized religion like christianity generally discourages critical thinking; don't question your God, don't question the "why" and look for an answer from outside the bible that is the real ultimate truth. Just swallow and believe.

Really, am I the only one who finds it frightening that one of the most powerful men in the world asks his mind ghosts for guidance?

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Yes I think they are bad, Luke. Obviously. The problem, however, is the establishment of precedent, which is quite important when determining something such as law. To ban an aforementioned person solely based on one's affiliation leaves the door open to allow other groups to be banned for less obvious reasons. Groups that might be unpopular politically to the current government would be just as liable to be 'banned' as anyone else. Groups which have no political affiliation whatsoever could be labeled as 'extremist' and banned as well.

Second point: Not all religions believe that faith alone is the only criteria. As I have said before, I am a Unitarian, though I have yet to see a 'dogmatic' Unitarian in my life. Religion CAN be open and liberal without seeking to become fundamentalist. Positing a belief in a divine source is hardly grounds for restriction of the mechanism of government any more than a political party in a democracy deserves to be shut out of the political process. Fine, you hate nazis, but Nazis are not the end all be all of evil in the world. ANY political group can be dogmatic, and I just find it rather unfathomable that you might seek to distinguish being religious as somehow equivalent in preventing a persom from serving on the court. Again, should not the person themselves be judged as opposed to what membership one holds?

 

[SimpleMinded]

el_Prez]I try to remain apathetic when it comes to politics but I think this country has gotten to up tight on the seperation of church and state. I would say that i would support a supreme court justice more if i knew that he/she were a christian. It would give me reason to think they had a good moral understanding.

Say what? I'm sorry, I know it was a few posts up but I'm at a loss for what you're saying. Why does being a christian imply that a person has a good moral understanding? What about other religious backgrounds? What makes a christian have some sort of greater moral understanding than someone who isn't christian?