Should a jurist hearing an abortion case recuse him/herself because the faith of the jurist opposes abortion?

 

Could a mod add a poll please? Thank You!

I'm a little confused....In what situation would an abortion require a jury trial?

I'm a little confused....In what situation would an abortion require a jury trial?

Jurist refers to a Judge.

A challenge to Roe v Wade for example.

Jurist refers to a Judge.

 

My question still applies....In what situation would an abortion go before a judge?

My question still applies....In what situation would an abortion go before a judge?

Appeal of a current law concerning abortion, in State or Federal Court.

 

Could be a suit about Parental notification, about notification of the father, what Doctors do or don't tell the mother before hand...there are tons of subjects that could go before a Judge.

Appeal of a current law concerning abortion, in State or Federal Court.

 

Could be a suit about Parental notification, about notification of the father, what Doctors do or don't tell the mother before hand...there are tons of subjects that could go before a Judge.

 

Okay.

 

My answer is no. A judge uses only the law to make decisions. If we start allowing judges to recuse themselves based on personal opinions of issues, we won't have anyone left to hear any cases.

Okay.

 

My answer is no. A judge uses only the law to make decisions. If we start allowing judges to recuse themselves based on personal opinions of issues, we won't have anyone left to hear any cases.

I agree with you in theory, that Judges should base all decisions and rulings off of the law. However, we can just look at the Supreme Court and see that Judges routinely make decisions based on ideological lines and not the letter of the law. It's not a coincidence that Justices selected by Liberal Presidents in most cases interpret the law the same way while Justices selected by Conservative Presidents are generally in agreement. They all read the same law and hear the same case yet they make their decisions based on their personal viewpoints interpretation of that law.

I agree with you in theory, that Judges should base all decisions and rulings off of the law. However, we can just look at the Supreme Court and see that Judges routinely make decisions based on ideological lines and not the letter of the law. It's not a coincidence that Justices selected by Liberal Presidents in most cases interpret the law the same way while Justices selected by Conservative Presidents are generally in agreement. They all read the same law and hear the same case yet they make their decisions based on their personal viewpoints interpretation of that law.

 

Idealogical is not the same as religious, correct?

Idealogical is not the same as religious, correct?

 

Not necessarily , in my opinion. Ideological positions can be driven by faith.

Not necessarily , in my opinion. Ideological positions can be driven by faith.

 

Correct. However, my guess is that Justice Roberts is pro-life but would not overturn Roe V Wade. His faith is against it but his interpretation of the Constitution would override that.

Correct. However, my guess is that Justice Roberts is pro-life but would not overturn Roe V Wade. His faith is against it but his interpretation of the Constitution would override that.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/politicsspecial1/skirmish-over-a-query-about-robertss-faith.html?_r=0

 

"An opinion-page article in The Los Angeles Times on Monday by Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, included an account of Mr. Durbin's question. Professor Turley cited unnamed sources saying that Judge Roberts had told Mr. Durbin he would recuse himself from cases involving abortion, the death penalty or other subjects where Catholic teaching and civil law can clash."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/politicsspecial1/skirmish-over-a-query-about-robertss-faith.html?_r=0

 

"An opinion-page article in The Los Angeles Times on Monday by Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, included an account of Mr. Durbin's question. Professor Turley cited unnamed sources saying that Judge Roberts had told Mr. Durbin he would recuse himself from cases involving abortion, the death penalty or other subjects where Catholic teaching and civil law can clash."

 

Should Roberts have to recuse himself here where his faith lies in contradiction to the Law?

Okay.

 

My answer is no. A judge uses only the law to make decisions. If we start allowing judges to recuse themselves based on personal opinions of issues, we won't have anyone left to hear any cases.

 

This.

 

If we set the precedent that judges are prejudiced then we perpetuate the belief our system of justice is a sham.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/politicsspecial1/skirmish-over-a-query-about-robertss-faith.html?_r=0

 

"An opinion-page article in The Los Angeles Times on Monday by Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, included an account of Mr. Durbin's question. Professor Turley cited unnamed sources saying that Judge Roberts had told Mr. Durbin he would recuse himself from cases involving abortion, the death penalty or other subjects where Catholic teaching and civil law can clash."

 

Has he recused himself?