|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 26, 2005 2:50:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Jul 26, 2005 8:37:00 GMT -5
The message board software doesn't do links with commas in them well. Clickl here for the article. |
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Jul 26, 2005 8:44:08 GMT -5
Here's a little fodder from the column:
For my part, I'd have to agree that an Article III judge's principal obligation is to the Constitution and laws of the United States. If he cannot subordinate his personal religious beliefs to the requirements of his office, he ought to seek another position that does not require that choice.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,432
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 26, 2005 11:57:50 GMT -5
Doesn't that refer to all of us? I, as a Christian, sometimes view my faith in its essence as a radical departure from the materialism of American culture. If many of us were really true to our faith, we would have to speak out about many of the practices of our workplace. But, if a person is so committed, do you really want to lose that voice of conscience, that input that provide for a better society? Is the only place for such a person in a monastery?
|
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Jul 26, 2005 14:44:27 GMT -5
It's all fine and well for a Catholic to speak out about his or her beliefs and morals. And it's a bit naive to believe that they can religious beliefs can be easily segregated from one's obligations. However, speaking out about practices in the workplace as problematic relative to one's faith is (in my view anyway) different that relying on faith as a guidepost to resolving legal disputes.
It may be quaint of me, but I believe that one's religious beliefs are one's own and that, as far as the judiciary is concerned, one must check those beliefs at the door when arriving at work. There are already more than sufficient tools available to the jurist in deciding the cases presented; inclusion of one's creed is simply unnecessary. Reliance on one's creed is fine for the legislator in deciding what legislation to propose; he's presumably made his position known to the electorate who voted him in, and he still has to get the approval of a majority of the representatives of the rest of the electorate. A judge, however, is supposed to decide cases without predisposition and based on the existing law.
Judge Roberts can and should be able to speak about his religious beliefs (just as Justice Scalia has), but if he brings it to the bench with him in deciding cases, I don't think he's fit to be a federal judge. He can decline to accept morally repugnanat representations in private practice as an attorney, and he can seek higher office on a platform of condeming the materialism in American culture. I just can't square putting one's creed out in front like that if one is to take the obligations of an Article III office seriously, however.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,432
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 27, 2005 22:24:31 GMT -5
It's all fine and well for a Catholic to speak out about his or her beliefs and morals. And it's a bit naive to believe that they can religious beliefs can be easily segregated from one's obligations. However, speaking out about practices in the workplace as problematic relative to one's faith is (in my view anyway) different that relying on faith as a guidepost to resolving legal disputes. It may be quaint of me, but I believe that one's religious beliefs are one's own and that, as far as the judiciary is concerned, one must check those beliefs at the door when arriving at work. There are already more than sufficient tools available to the jurist in deciding the cases presented; inclusion of one's creed is simply unnecessary. Reliance on one's creed is fine for the legislator in deciding what legislation to propose; he's presumably made his position known to the electorate who voted him in, and he still has to get the approval of a majority of the representatives of the rest of the electorate. A judge, however, is supposed to decide cases without predisposition and based on the existing law. Judge Roberts can and should be able to speak about his religious beliefs (just as Justice Scalia has), but if he brings it to the bench with him in deciding cases, I don't think he's fit to be a federal judge. He can decline to accept morally repugnanat representations in private practice as an attorney, and he can seek higher office on a platform of condeming the materialism in American culture. I just can't square putting one's creed out in front like that if one is to take the obligations of an Article III office seriously, however. Well, maybe, but I still think that if you really are committed to your beliefs, those beliefs are a part of you. I am reminded of the film The Chariots of Fire, where Eric Liddel has refused to run a heat, since it was to be on a Sunday. Finally, another runner offers Liddel his place in another race. Meanwhile the Prince of Wales and the Great Britain's Olympic committee breathed a sigh of relief and somebody said, that it was good because you can't separate the man from his belief and if you forced him to run his heart would not have been in it, and he would have lost. Your statement about refusing to accept morally repugnant representations in private practice as an attorney made me laugh. What would trial lawyers do in that case.  |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 27, 2005 22:58:21 GMT -5
Interesting responses so far.
What I thought when reading this op-ed was: would Sen. Durbin ask the same question of a Protestant Christian? For example, would a Southern Baptist's religious beliefs be considered a potential roadblock to confirmation? What about an Episcopalian? Does Durbin's question suggest that America has a lingering anti-Catholic bias?
I'll go ahead and answer my own last question here: Probably not, since Durbin himself is a Roman Catholic. There's also plenty of other evidence, too lengthy to list here, to suggest anti-Catholic attitudes are a thing of the distant past.
However, if Durbin wasn't Catholic, wouldn't it appear he was promoting some sort of "Catholic test" for the Supreme Court? Is it still possible he's promoting some sort of "practicing Catholic" or "faithful Catholic" test? Am I overanalyzing a simple and innocuous question?
Re: what you two (Nevada and showcase) have said so far, it looks like you're more in agreement than you may think. Of course a judge must check religious edicts at the door, but his/her background will probably have a subtle effect on his/her decisions. Best example I can think of at the moment is the treatment of water issues by the Rehnquist court, with O'Connor and Rehnquist often taking identical views on water issues. Many attribute this to the fact that both hail from the western USA.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Jul 27, 2005 22:59:31 GMT -5
Is anyone really so naive to think that justices can always keep their personal opinions separate from their deliberations and decisions? Whay should it matter that one person may happen to get some of his opinions from his religious convictions, while another may not? If a judicial nominee did not hold any religious beliefs, would that mean his personal opinions would be exempt from scrutiny because they are not founded in religion? If someone believes strongly about something, whether or not religion is the motivating factor, it will likely affect their ability to make fair decisions. What I wonder is whether this discussion would be under way if Roberts was a deeply religious Prostestant, or whether it is Catholicism, not religious devotion in general, that offends people. "What I thought when reading this op-ed was: would Sen. Durbin ask the same question of a Protestant Christian? For example, would a Southern Baptist's religious beliefs be considered a potential roadblock to confirmation? What about an Episcopalian? Does Durbin's question suggest that America has a lingering anti-Catholic bias?" I guess it took me about one minute longer to type  |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 28, 2005 2:59:14 GMT -5
An article on the subject:
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-roberts-catholic,1,7632540.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines Click me.[/url]
|
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Jul 28, 2005 8:19:54 GMT -5
Of course a person can never fully set aside their strongly held religious beliefs. Perhaps I should clarify what I was getting at.
Judge Roy Moore (Ala. S. Ct.) - nit-wit who used religion as his soapbox in all matters judicial. Unacceptable as a jurist.
Judge Roberts (D.C. Cir.) - bright man with strongly held religious beliefs. Unlikely to pull a Roy Moore. Funny things can happen to people who ascend to the SCOTUS, however, so it's okay to try to guage how much potential a nominee has to pull a Roy Moore.
Whether it's lingering anti-Catholic bias, I'd have to say no. The bias does exist, but I don't think it exists inside the Beltway anymore.
|
|
