You never know what you're going to get with Kennedy. The wild card of the SCOTUS for sure.

Yes. The court is made up of six Roman Catholics and three Jews. No Protestants, no evangelicals, no people who list their religious affiliation as "none," no atheists. Harvard and Yale every one. Appointed for life.

 

The bigger problem is that too many issues are viewed through just a handful of prisms.

 

We will have an openly gay President (or Supreme Court justice) before an atheist successfully gets through the confirmation process.

Yes. The court is made up of six Roman Catholics and three Jews. No Protestants, no evangelicals, no people who list their religious affiliation as "none," no atheists. Harvard and Yale every one. Appointed for life.

 

The bigger problem is that too many issues are viewed through just a handful of prisms.

 

Fair enough.

Which interpretation of the Bible would we use? The Catholic one? The Protestant one? Baptist? Non-Denominational?

Here's a good article showing the ruling tendencies of the current 9 justices. Not surprisingly, Kennedy is to the middle of the other 8, but he does more often agree with Roberts/Thomas/Scalia/Alito than he does Breyer/Sotomayor/Ginsburg/Kagan.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

 

Interesting that the minimum agreement percentages is about 2/3rds for even the most opposite leaning justices.

Which interpretation of the Bible would we use? The Catholic one? The Protestant one? Baptist? Non-Denominational?

 

I've asked that and the question was never answered. But I also said it will have to be the Catholic Bible and a Catholic committee overseeing what will apply to the laws.

Which interpretation of the Bible would we use? The Catholic one? The Protestant one? Baptist? Non-Denominational?

 

I'm sure if we use the King James Version then Michael Jordan fans will be whining nonstop about that.

 

 

Just saying.

Unless you are going base a ruling on 'natural law' - and yes, the founders did believe there is a natural law element above mankind's 'positive law' then the answer should be - no.

 

I believe the founders did believe their is an order higher than the one they created. This was referenced in Declaration of Independence and leveraged as justification to be rebels and rebel against the authority of King of England and his positive law.

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

Emphasis added to key points matching above.

 

I do not believe the founders leveraged the Bible as the authoritative source of their 'natural rights' in a manner that radical Islam uses (mis-uses?) the Koran. But all people who eventually rebel against a government must do so outside man-made positive law to justify their break with the ruling government. Even the founders, in the Declaration, warned against invoking natural law unless as a last resort.

 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same

 

Using the Bible, Koran, English common law, other outside references is probably just not a good idea for the role of the court.

As a Christian, the Bible should be used to help guide and make important decisions in one's life. So it should be woven into the fabric of everything they do individually anyway.

Whether they should or should not is almost irrelevant.

 

More than a century ago, some American legal scholars (most notably Oliver Wendell Holmes) began espousing the theory of "legal realism". Classical legal thought (descended from Britain) believed that the system of laws as promulgated by judges could act as a completely autonomous system of discourse, free from moral and political influence. Judges such as Holmes thought that idea was completely ridiculous.

 

Judges cannot help but bring their own beliefs and politics into the chamber with them and to think otherwise is to be kidding yourself. I believe that not only is this true, but judges CAN NOT help doing it. It is impossible to completely dismiss your own political and moral leanings when making decisions from the bench. It is good to be aware of ones own biases, but it is absurd to think that judges (or anyone else) can simply toss them away.

 

Should federal judges be quoting the Epistle of James in their decisions? Probably not. But it's ridiculous to think that you could stop a biblically-literate judge from thinking of the Bible when contemplating his or her decisions.

Have not posted in a while, and have not read this thread. However, to answer the question:

 

No.

Whether they should or should not is almost irrelevant.

 

More than a century ago, some American legal scholars (most notably Oliver Wendell Holmes) began espousing the theory of "legal realism". Classical legal thought (descended from Britain) believed that the system of laws as promulgated by judges could act as a completely autonomous system of discourse, free from moral and political influence. Judges such as Holmes thought that idea was completely ridiculous.

 

Judges cannot help but bring their own beliefs and politics into the chamber with them and to think otherwise is to be kidding yourself. I believe that not only is this true, but judges CAN NOT help doing it. It is impossible to completely dismiss your own political and moral leanings when making decisions from the bench. It is good to be aware of ones own biases, but it is absurd to think that judges (or anyone else) can simply toss them away.

 

Should federal judges be quoting the Epistle of James in their decisions? Probably not. But it's ridiculous to think that you could stop a biblically-literate judge from thinking of the Bible when contemplating his or her decisions.

 

Perhaps this is overly simplistic, but look at how many 5-4 votes we have with the same 5 and the same 4. They can't do it.

Perhaps this is overly simplistic, but look at how many 5-4 votes we have with the same 5 and the same 4. They can't do it.

 

At the Supreme Court level it's flat-out impossible given the types of cases they're given. I think it's also true of every single judge right down to someone sitting on a small claims case in Meade County District Court. Your own leanings will ALWAYS come into play.

Yes. The court is made up of six Roman Catholics and three Jews. No Protestants, no evangelicals, no people who list their religious affiliation as "none," no atheists. Harvard and Yale every one. Appointed for life.

 

The bigger problem is that too many issues are viewed through just a handful of prisms.

 

You and I finally agree on something.