Kennedy Announces Plan To Retire July 31

[Vol0725]

The question of whether her religious beliefs would have an effect on how she might rule is a legitimate one.



Its funny, you claim to want strict adherence to the objective text of the Constitution, but then complain when people want to ask a potential judge if things outside of the Constitution would influence them.



You can't have it both ways.










No. In the early 1800s the country had very few educated practitioners and a small enough population that those people were known and elevated, so it was not surprising that people would be called upon to transition from one branch to another.



We don't need to do that now and selecting a sitting elected official to move to the judicial branch like that is fraught with problems and conflicts.




I'm thinking its going to be Kethledge. There would be a standard partisan fight, but he'd probably be confirmed fairly handily.

Agreed, Lee not happening, think he played advisory roll based on his political/legal experience + he's from a family of legal pros (Father was U.S. Solicitor General, brother is Associate Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court .

From a constitutional centrist perspective, the 4 main contenders are all very good choices.

 

[golfballs]

The question of whether her religious beliefs would have an effect on how she might rule is a legitimate one.



Its funny, you claim to want strict adherence to the objective text of the Constitution, but then complain when people want to ask a potential judge if things outside of the Constitution would influence them.



You can't have it both ways.










No. In the early 1800s the country had very few educated practitioners and a small enough population that those people were known and elevated, so it was not surprising that people would be called upon to transition from one branch to another.



We don't need to do that now and selecting a sitting elected official to move to the judicial branch like that is fraught with problems and conflicts.




I'm thinking its going to be Kethledge. There would be a standard partisan fight, but he'd probably be confirmed fairly handily.

Libs don't think religious people belong in any position of authority.

 

[Septic]

Libs don't think religious people belong in any position of authority.

:boobies:

 

[Orangeburst]

:boobies:

Ya'll better hurry...Gonna miss the bus.

 

[lawgator1]

Libs don't think religious people belong in any position of authority.

No, libs don't think religion belongs as the authority for government.


People of all religions, or no religion, or moderate religion, whatever, can be in government all they want. It just should not influence their decisionmaking.


I'm surprised anyone would say differently.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Today like everyday, will be a cry fest.

:cray: Floods of lib tears somewhere a little after 9 pm et.

 

[StillStanding]

No, libs don't think religion belongs as the authority for government.


People of all religions, or no religion, or moderate religion, whatever, can be in government all they want. It just should not influence their decisionmaking.


I'm surprised anyone would say differently.

Everyone has pillars of "truth" that establishes their belief system. Sometimes it's religious and sometimes its an experience or both. These pillars influence decisions we make throughout our life. Even interpreting law is viewed through the lens that theses pillars uphold.

One can say that they will not be influenced by their pillars of truth, but me thinks few can be separated. This is true for both liberal and conservative. The question is unfair.

 

[golfballs]

No, libs don't think religion belongs as the authority for government.


People of all religions, or no religion, or moderate religion, whatever, can be in government all they want. It just should not influence their decisionmaking.


I'm surprised anyone would say differently.

We’ve already seen it. She’s already been though confirmation hearings. No use in pretending otherwise. Diane Feinstein proclaimed she was too Catholic “the dogma lives loudly in you”

 

[T-TownVol]

No, libs don't think religion belongs as the authority for government.


People of all religions, or no religion, or moderate religion, whatever, can be in government all they want. It just should not influence their decisionmaking.


I'm surprised anyone would say differently.

"Bless Your Heart"......

 

[lawgator1]

Everyone has pillars of "truth" that establishes their belief system. Sometimes it's religious and sometimes its an experience or both. These pillars influence decisions we make throughout our life. Even interpreting law is viewed through the lens that theses pillars uphold.

One can say that they will not be influenced by their pillars of truth, but me thinks few can be separated. This is true for both liberal and conservative. The question is unfair.

To put it in perspective, let's say the nominee were Muslim.



Its one thing for the nominee to think to herself that she believes in strong family values, which in turn is influenced naturally by her Islamic faith.


It is quite another for her to make a decision because she thinks it is directed by the Quran.



Something tells me you so-called Christian conservatives would have a HUGE problem with the latter.

 

[Orangeburst]

:cray: Floods of lib tears everywhere a little after nov 8 2016.

fyp

 

[Vol0725]

Interesting perspective from the late judge John Noonan:

The Religion of the Justice: Does It Affect
Constitutional Decision Making

https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2581&context=tlr

He ends with...

Frankly, I find it difficult to understand the trust put in conscience when its
theological roots are cut. (I do not doubt the sincerity of the conscientious atheist-only
his explanation for his certainty.) But as long as there is a consensus that conscience is
key, I will no more quarrel with another's understanding of its power than I would judge
the conscience of another. From my perspective, it is this conviction at one's inner core,
uniting principles and experience and empathy, that counts most in judging. It is here
that the religion of the judge-not just this or that particular precept but the whole thrust
of the judge's commitment to God-can make a difference. To measure that difference,
however, belongs not to any human but to God.

 

[StillStanding]

To put it in perspective, let's say the nominee were Muslim.



Its one thing for the nominee to think to herself that she believes in strong family values, which in turn is influenced naturally by her Islamic faith.


It is quite another for her to make a decision because she thinks it is directed by the Quran.



Something tells me you so-called Christian conservatives would have a HUGE problem with the latter.

You seem to assume that only Athiests can truly make value judgments, because they are not influenced by religion.

I'm wondering if a Christian or Athiest judge would have a chance in an Muslim nation, even though he/she promised to uphold the law based on Muslim principals. I would have no problem with a Muslim faith judge upholding our constitution built on Judeo-Christian principles.

 

[TN Ribs]

Today like everyday, will be a cry fest.

That's true, the Right Wing Media, Trump, and the vast majority of posters on VN will all be crying about the mainstream media tonight - those meanies at CNN send you all into meltdown-mode on a daily basis.

 

[Vol0725]

That's true, the Right Wing Media, Trump, and the vast majority of posters on VN will all be crying about the mainstream media tonight - those meanies at CNN send you all into meltdown-mode on a daily basis.

Correction, more like laughter-mode.

 

[apevol]

Fun Fact: My Cousin Vinny is regarded as being one of the most technically accurate legal films and is used as an example of the importance of legal procedure for young lawyers. Or so I've been told, IANAL.

i anal too

 

[lawgator1]

You seem to assume that only Athiests can truly make value judgments, because they are not influenced by religion.

I'm wondering if a Christian or Athiest judge would have a chance in an Muslim nation, even though he/she promised to uphold the law based on Muslim principals. I would have no problem with a Muslim faith judge upholding our constitution built on Judeo-Christian principles.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Please stop mischaracterizing my comments.


I'm saying that a religious person can serve on the Court. He/she just cannot rule based on his/her religious beliefs.

 

[theFallGuy]

That's true, the Right Wing Media, Trump, and the vast majority of posters on VN will all be crying about the mainstream media tonight - those meanies at CNN send you all into meltdown-mode on a daily basis.

.

 

[T-TownVol]

Correction, more like laughter-mode.

This....

 

[hndog609]

I'm saying that a religious person can serve on the Court. He/she just cannot rule based on his/her religious beliefs.

To the greatest extent possible he/she shouldn't be basing rulings on any sort of "beliefs".

 

[AM64]

I'm still thinking Trump pulls a fast one somehow and bring in someone nobody is expecting.

Exactly how I'd play it. Let Dims line up arguments against four potential candidates, and then hit them with a zinger - the fifth one nobody saw coming.

 

[AM64]

No, libs don't think religion belongs as the authority for government.


People of all religions, or no religion, or moderate religion, whatever, can be in government all they want. It just should not influence their decisionmaking.


I'm surprised anyone would say differently.

Where does the threat of excommunication for Catholics fit in with that influence to decision making? If a threat to someone's belonging in anything fell outside religion, it would just about be an automatic disqualifier for a security clearance because it is essentially blackmail.

 

[AirVol]

Garland

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

What about liberals that worship the State?

 

[Orangeslice13]

Good point, nor did the judge in 'My Cousin Vinny' make the list.

He’s dead......so......