Potentially no Protestants on SCOTUS

[BigPoppa]

I didn't realize this......Justice Stevens is the only sitting Protestant Justice. The balance includes 6 Catholics, and 2 Jews.

If Kagan is confirmed - 6 Catholic, 3 Jewish, 0 Protestant.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, just (to me) unusual in a majority-Protestant country.

Kagan, Judaism and the Bible: 'Justice, justice shall you pursue' - Faith & Reason

[E4 No More]

Personally, I want religion staying out of SCOTUS.

[MacGyver]

Hmm...That is interesting.

I'm not sure what the impact will be in the long run, but seems statistically interesting. You would expect the makeup to roughly parallel the population, but I guess you would be wrong.

[BigPoppa]

Personally, I want religion staying out of SCOTUS.

You'd prefer 9 Athiests ?

[mikegideon]

Personally, I want religion staying out of SCOTUS.

Ditto

[mikegideon]

You'd prefer 9 Athiests ?

Can't speak for jewell, but IMO, it shouldn't matter.

[Reservoir Dog]

I don't care what their religion is (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc...). It should not matter.

You'd prefer 9 Athiests ?

If they did a proper job of interpreting and following the law, then a Atheist is just fine with me.

[BigPoppa]

Personally, I want religion staying out of SCOTUS.

This sounds good, I guess, but how would you acomplish it ?

Each Justice is going to bring their lifelong, inherent religious beliefs (or lack of them) to the Court. Morals and ethics are a basic part of religion, and they should also be a part of the legal system.

SCOTUS every term hears cases involving freedom of religion issues (some would say freedom from religion issues). Issues such as death penalty appeals and abortion cases, while not religious in nature on their face, will certainly reflect the religious values of the plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys, and the Justices.

The very building these cases are heard in contains images of Moses, Solomon, and Muhammad.

The oath of office for a SCOTUS Justice ends in "so help me, God."

So "keep religion out of SCOTUS" may make a nice talking point, but in practical terms, how do you do it ?

[mikegideon]

This sounds good, I guess, but how would you acomplish it ?

Each Justice is going to bring their lifelong, inherent religious beliefs (or lack of them) to the Court. Morals and ethics are a basic part of religion, and they should also be a part of the legal system.

SCOTUS every term hears cases involving freedom of religion issues (some would say freedom from religion issues). Issues such as death penalty appeals and abortion cases, while not religious in nature on their face, will certainly reflect the religious values of the plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys, and the Justices.

The very building these cases are heard in contains images of Moses, Solomon, and Muhammad.

The oath of office for a SCOTUS Justice ends in "so help me, God."

So "keep religion out of SCOTUS" may make a nice talking point, but in practical terms, how do you do it ?

Morals and ethics are part of being a good human being. Sure, religion teaches it, but I know some very moral/ethical atheists, and some real sorry christians (and I'm not bashing christians in general).

Judge them on who they are.

[Smith]

I don't care what their religion is (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc...). It should not matter.

If they did a proper job of interpreting and following the law, then a Atheist is just fine with me.

Exactly how do you accurately interpret the law when it was/is written and based in Judeo Christian morality/ethic? It's like asking a Muslim to be you Baptist preacher. You're just not going to get it very accurate no matter how "good" a guy he/she is.

For those who will argue the law is/was not based on the above, I would say you have the same problem socialist have. No recognition of history or truth.

[Reservoir Dog]

The oath of office for a SCOTUS Justice ends in "so help me, God."

Actually it doesn't. Nowhere in the US Constitution does the words "so help me, God" appear in the oaths that federal officials are required to take. It has become customary (for some reason), but it is not required.

[Reservoir Dog]

Exactly how do you accurately interpret the law when it was/is written and based in Judeo Christian morality/ethic? It's like asking a Muslim to be you Baptist preacher. You're just not going to get it very accurate no matter how "good" a guy he/she is.

For those who will argue the law is/was not based on the above, I would say you have the same problem socialist have. No recognition of history or truth.

I don't deny that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. However the job of a SCOTUS judge, or any judge, is not to make the laws, but to interpret and follow them. As long as they leave their personal religious views out of their decisions, and they follow the law and the Constitution, I don't care about their religious affiliation.

[Smith]

I don't deny that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian values. However the job of a SCOTUS judge, or any judge, is not to make the laws, but to interpret and follow them. As long as they leave their personal religious views out of their decisions, and they follow the law and the Constitution, I don't care about their religious affiliation.

I hear what your saying and for the most part, in theory, agree but would you concede that it makes a difference if the person is of a belief diametrically opposed to the foundation of the law? Religion aside, this is what has brought us to the brink of socialism as it is. Activist judges "creating" new law outside of the framers intent and base.

[Guest peacexxl]

Exactly how do you accurately interpret the law when it was/is written and based in Judeo Christian morality/ethic? It's like asking a Muslim to be you Baptist preacher. You're just not going to get it very accurate no matter how "good" a guy he/she is.

For those who will argue the law is/was not based on the above, I would say you have the same problem socialist have. No recognition of history or truth.

I think I do disagree with this idea. Just because those who wrote the laws came from a Judeo Christian background, doesn't mean that the moral/ethics that they hold dear belong strictly to them alone. The more I learn about other cultures and religions, the more in common they all seem to have.

[Guest Jamie]

You'd prefer 9 Athiests ?

Given how much trouble religion has caused over the centuries, I'd be perfectly happy with a group of people who could move beyond all that and just do their job.

J.

[E4 No More]

You'd prefer 9 Athiests ?

More along the lines of agnosticism rather than atheism. Athiesm is a belief system in and of itself just like theism. The job of SCOTUS is to judge the laws as to their constitutionality; not use their religious beliefs to sway their judgements. I find that too many people use the bible to justify their personal beliefs by taking things out of context, or allowing someone else to do it for them with the end result being the same. If they do that with something written from the devine inspiration from God, what do you expect them to do with something that is not from the devine inspiration of God? No thanks...keep your religion out of it.

[Reservoir Dog]

I hear what your saying and for the most part, in theory, agree but would you concede that it makes a difference if the person is of a belief diametrically opposed to the foundation of the law? Religion aside, this is what has brought us to the brink of socialism as it is. Activist judges "creating" new law outside of the framers intent and base.

Yes, I agree with you. Some judges let their personal views (religious, or otherwise) influence their decisions. That is what makes them bad judges. A good judge will base their decision on the words and intent of the law, and not allow personal views to influence them. Most judges do a very good job, but there are far too many activist judges out there.

[Smith]

I think I do disagree with this idea. Just because those who wrote the laws came from a Judeo Christian background, doesn't mean that the moral/ethics that they hold dear belong strictly to them alone. The more I learn about other cultures and religions, the more in common they all seem to have.

According to the scripture God has written the law on our hearts. Makes sense that there would generally be commonality among base beliefs.

Given how much trouble religion has caused over the centuries, I'd be perfectly happy with a group of people who could move beyond all that and just do their job.

J.

Exactly what would that look like. "Religion" as you say is simply a way for us to express in a identifiable context who we are. There is no such thing as a person with no belief. Atheist, agnostics, etc. are just as ardent if not more so in their "beliefs" than the so called religious people they oppose.

[BigPoppa]

Actually it doesn't.

From www.supremecourt.gov

Text of the Oaths of Office for Supreme Court Justices

[Smith]

More along the lines of agnosticism rather than atheism. Athiesm is a belief system in and of itself just like theism. The job of SCOTUS is to judge the laws as to their constitutionality; not use their religious beliefs to sway their judgements. I find that too many people use the bible to justify their personal beliefs by taking things out of context, or allowing someone else to do it for them with the end result being the same. If they do that with something written from the devine inspiration from God, what do you expect them to do with something that is not from the devine inspiration of God? No thanks...keep your religion out of it.

Just using your quote as thought starter. Why is it people are so worried about "bible" people abusing the laws, when it is exactly the opposite. The dilution of the penal code, abortion laws, death penalty removal, stripping of states rights, etc. all stemmed from agnostic/atheist activism. Not the other way around.

[BigPoppa]

Exactly what would that look like. "Religion" as you say is simply a way for us to express in a identifiable context who we are. There is no such thing as a person with no belief. Atheist, agnostics, etc. are just as ardent if not more so in their "beliefs" than the so called religious people they oppose.

+ 1

[Oh Shoot]

Personally, I want religion staying out of SCOTUS.

Ditto

Ditto²

I'd prefer that decisions are not influenced by mythological and magical thinking, unless Harry Potter is appointed.

- OS

[Reservoir Dog]

From www.supremecourt.gov

Text of the Oaths of Office for Supreme Court Justices

Ah, I wasn't aware of the second Judiciary Oath. I was speaking of what Constitution said. It would be interesting to see what would happen, in regards to the oath, if an Atheist was ever appointed to SCOTUS.

Wording of the oath aside, an Atheist judge (as long as they do their job properly) would not be any better or worse than anyone else.

[mikegideon]

Ditto²

I'd prefer that decisions are not influenced by mythological and magical thinking, unless Harry Potter is appointed.

- OS

This is gonna get better than a Glock bashin' thread

[Smith]

Ah, I wasn't aware of the second Judiciary Oath. I was speaking of what Constitution said. It would be interesting to see what would happen, in regards to the oath, if an Atheist was ever appointed to SCOTUS.

Wording of the oath aside, an Atheist judge (as long as they do their job properly) would not be any better or worse than anyone else.

Supposedly a persons beliefs shouldn't affect interpretation.