Should Religion Matter?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush, the person, can take all aspects of a person's life into account.

[/ QUOTE ]No, when choosing someone for the Supreme Court he can not. The Constitution forbids him from taking religion into account.

When you take religion into account, as Bush did, it means that two people exactly the same in every way, except for religion would be regarded differently. One could then be favored or disfavored in regards to the other. That is a test.

If religion made absolutely no difference (if it were not a test) then one could not say that it was taken into account.[ QUOTE ]
If Bush found a great confirmable originalist who was an atheist, I think he would nominate her.

[/ QUOTE ]Then you're nuts.

There were many great confirmable proven originalists Bush could have nominated: yet he nominted someone who is not proven at all, and who very few would say is qualified. Hell, there's speculation she wouldn't even make it through the committee if a Republican jumps ship. That's 0 for 3. Why do you think she nominated her?

Obviously "great" "confirmable" and "originalist" were not Bush's only criteria.

[RR12]

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by <font color="yellow"> </font> or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


Well the president takes an oath, with his hand on the bible.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Article VI of the Constitution states:


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Saying that no religious person should be on SCOTUS is applying a religious test and is thus in violation of Article VI of the Constitution.

[TomCollins]

This is by his own choice. If a President wanted to put his hand on a comic book, Encyclopedia Britannica, or Mein Kampf, he would.

[lehighguy]

Now that the supreme court legislates from the bench it has become another outlet for imposing your values on society.

I really see no difference between religous and non-religous values. I fail to even see how they are different since you can call any value system a religion.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
There were many great confirmable proven originalists Bush could have nominated:

[/ QUOTE ]

Grey, but they all have paper trails that the media and the Democrats would have disected word for word. The problem with the SCOTUS nominating process is not religion; it is the way that certain groups who don't understand Constitutional Law/decisions react. If you didn't think Roe V. Wade was properly decided, many people assume you want to ban abortion. I blame the media for much of this mess.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Grey, but they all have paper trails that the media and the Democrats would have disected word for word.

[/ QUOTE ]1) not all of them

and

2) Miers was a last-minute rush-job when the Administration's top choice backed out over the weekend (or so the Republican staffers are claiming). She hasn't been vetted well and much of what's coming out about her now is not only news to us, but news to the White House as well.

If lack of a paper trail was really the most important factor, a better qualified, more reliably conservative, and more easily confirmable justice could have been found. Example: Roberts. There's a reason Roberts and Miers are being treated differently; and they both appear to have about the same amount of a paper trail so that can't be the cause.

There are many thousands of people more qualified to sit on the bench than the woman who helped Bush with his fishing shack.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
If lack of a paper trail was really the most important factor, a better qualified, more reliably conservative, and more easily confirmable justice could have been found. Example: Roberts. There's a reason Roberts and Miers are being treated differently; and they both appear to have about the same amount of a paper trail so that can't be the cause.


[/ QUOTE ]

My general point is lamenting that we cannot have a serious debate on the important issues facing the court. I think it is BS that nominees refuse to answer most of the questions asked during the confirmation process.

Whether it is Roberts or Miers, selecting candidates with little or no paper trail eliminates the vast majority of elite legal minds.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The premises are true. It's not to say that a person who believes in superstitious nonsense can't make good judgments. Of course they can, as Clarence Thomas and other christians on the court have shown. But they have indeed already shown the capacity to accept nonsense as truth, which means they can do so in the future, so I'd rather have judges that are not religious in the first place.

Again, it doesn't mean a superstitious individual can't be a good judge, it's just that all things being equal, non-superstitious judges are better.

natedogg