Should Religion Matter?

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you not understand what the word "required" means?

[/ QUOTE ]So you believe Bush would have nominated Miers if she were an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

That question continues to show that you don't understand what a religious test is.

Bush, the person, can take all aspects of a person's life into account. Last time he appointed a Catholic. A better case could be made for Clinton having a test, all his appointments were of the same religion.

If Bush found a great confirmable originalist who was an atheist, I think he would nominate her.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you care to elaborate on your statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

All religions are a bunch of superstitious nonsense. I'd rather see someone on the court who engages in rigorous critical thinking. To believe a religion means that as a judge you will at some point abandon critical thinking, or at least waiver on your commitment to it. After all you've done it at least once already. See Scalia for a prime example.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

Clearly a lot of thinking has gone into it.

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[vulturesrow]

Unfortunately your conclusion doesnt follow logically from your premises, even if I were to hold your premises to be true (which I dont). John Roberts is highly respected for his judicial thinking by legal scholars on the left and right, regardless of their opionion of his personal beliefs.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Religious people should not be on the court.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the few times I am inclined to disagree with you. I don't see why it should matter, as long as they are committed to upholding the Constitution and are competent to do so. Would you care to elaborate on your statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO.....in todays' political climate, the potential for conflict of interest is too great a risk, so I would agree with Natedogg.

It seems to me that the original intent to was prevent any person from being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

Contrast that with the concern in todays' world of rulings of the supreme court to be affected because of a judges religious belief.

The root issue here is one of maintaining the 'separation of church & state' doctrine.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Religious people should not be on the court.

[/ QUOTE ]



One of the few times I am inclined to disagree with you. I don't see why it should matter, as long as they are committed to upholding the Constitution and are competent to do so. Would you care to elaborate on your statement?

[/ QUOTE ]



IMHO.....in todays' political climate, the potential for conflict of interest is too great a risk, so I would agree with Natedogg.

It seems to me that the original intent to was prevent any person from being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

Contrast that with the concern in todays' world of rulings of the supreme court to be affected because of a judges religious belief.

The root issue here is one of maintaining the 'separation of church & state' doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Constitutional aspect does, and should, trump any such hazy potential concerns. There is certainly nothing in the Constitution which would support a requirement that SCOTUS candidates believe not in God as one of their qualifications.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you not understand what the word "required" means?

[/ QUOTE ]So you believe Bush would have nominated Miers if she were an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

That question continues to show that you don't understand what a religious test is.

Bush, the person, can take all aspects of a person's life into account. Last time he appointed a Catholic. A better case could be made for Clinton having a test, all his appointments were of the same religion.

If Bush found a great confirmable originalist who was an atheist, I think he would nominate her.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is true. I can't speak for Bush anymore than you, but I have a feeling that he places more importance on values (and the religious nature of them) than you are implying.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
but I have a feeling that he places more importance on values (and the religious nature of them) than you are implying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Loyalty >> Values >> Intelligence

[hurlyburly]

Anything to shake the tree would be good. Our dimorphic society is boring.

[ QUOTE ]
For those who voted no...how would you feel about a scientologist taking the bench? A buddhist? A Muslim?

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew someone would say this. The OP did not mention a specific religion, so I would gather that the aforementioned religions apply and the results would not change.