From his birth, through his childhood, through his years of formal education, through his post-college experiences, and to the present, Obama has always been surrounded by and influenced by those with radical liberal beliefs. Why would anyone think that, with his history and his record in the last three months, he will act differently when choosing a justice? You can be sure that loading the US Supreme Court with liberals is at the top of his list.

 

Not picking any kind of fight, just curious...

 

If he had been born in rural Wyoming, raised by strict Baptists, been educated in home-school by a preacher's wife, graduated from Liberty University, surrounded and influenced by those with "moderate, conservative beliefs" and was now president and getting ready to "load the US Supreme Court" with conservatives, would there be this much complaining?

You may assume I'm not a constitutional expert, but not that I'm not well versed in regard to the constitution. One of the key components of the constitution ensures the separation of church and state. Therefore, religious values of any particular influence should not enter into the application of constitutional rights.

 

I'm not sure how this could be confusing to you.

 

Actually all the constitution does in insure that there can be no laws established to restrict free practice of religion nor can there be an "official" religion. The "separation doctrine" comes from supreme court interpretations.

Actually all the constitution does in insure that there can be no laws established to restrict free practice of religion nor can there be an "official" religion. The "separation doctrine" comes from supreme court interpretations.

 

 

Let me state it this way:

 

Applying Judeo-Christian values, specifically, does not ensure that a matter is constitutional, or unconstitutional. The application of the constituation should not be influenced by race, religion, gender, etc. But to the post I replied, religion is the specific influence that I'm questioning.

Well, there are the traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and there are the what's-happening-now Judeo-Christian beliefs. I believe in the3 former.

 

Your last paragraph is confusing. Can I assume that you are not well versed in regard to the constitution?

 

You mean beliefs like: Slavery, segregation, crusades, forced conversion, Inquistions, Salem like beliefs? (All good Judeo-Christian beliefs at one point or another)

RM

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

When a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling it should be based solely on what the constitution says. That's why I don't understand why many feel it is important that this nominee NOT be a white male. If a white male is the person that is best able to rule based solely on what the constitution says then that is who should be nominated, if it's a woman then she should. What does sex or ethnicity have to do with ones ability to rule on constitutional matters?

RM

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

When a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling it should be based solely on what the constitution says. That's why I don't understand why many feel it is important that this nominee NOT be a white male. If a white male is the person that is best able to rule based solely on what the constitution says then that is who should be nominated, if it's a woman then she should. What does sex or ethnicity have to do with ones ability to rule on constitutional matters?

 

 

I personally don't care what color, religion, or gender they are. But I do want the rulings to be constitutionally sound. If the appointee is white, and male, so be it.

RM

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

When a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling it should be based solely on what the constitution says. That's why I don't understand why many feel it is important that this nominee NOT be a white male. If a white male is the person that is best able to rule based solely on what the constitution says then that is who should be nominated, if it's a woman then she should. What does sex or ethnicity have to do with ones ability to rule on constitutional matters?

 

Ready for a shock? I agree with you on a political appointment issue. :eek:

 

The only thing that I do cringe about is that if a female or minority is chosen that some will assume that they were appointed based on sex or race, not on qualifications.

Their qualifications should be able to speak for themselves.

 

What concerns me about this process is that when Obama was a Senator he stated that Alito and Roberts were both eminently qualified to serve but he voted against them because of philosophical differences. It really give me cause for concern as to exactly who he may nominate. I just hope that Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito stay healthy for at least 4 years.

Can someone define "judicial activism?"

 

Obama's statements that a nominee should be empathetic indicates that either he is ignorant of the role of the supreme court or that he is aware but chooses to ignore it in order to further his "program". I believe it is the latter.

 

 

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives," Obama told reporters after speaking with Souter by telephone.

 

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sns-ap-us-scotus-souter-retiring,0,3710828.story?track=rss

 

WOW! :scared: Not at all what I thought being a Supreme Court Justice was about.

 

Doesnt the rest of his statement show he's intent on bringing in someone who follows the law?

 

"I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role." Obama added, "I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."

Doesnt the rest of his statement show he's intent on bringing in someone who follows the law?

 

"I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role." Obama added, "I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."

 

So which policy does he really subscribe to?

Doesnt the rest of his statement show he's intent on bringing in someone who follows the law?

 

"I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role." Obama added, "I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."

 

Doubletalk. Actions will, as always, speak louder than doubletalk. Conserevatives and strict constructionists better be concerned with "...brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time".

You may assume I'm not a constitutional expert, but not that I'm not well versed in regard to the constitution. One of the key components of the constitution ensures the separation of church and state. Therefore, religious values of any particular influence should not enter into the application of constitutional rights.

 

I'm not sure how this could be confusing to you.

 

Which "key component" of the constitution "ensures" the separation of church and state? Does the First Amendment actually state that there shall be such a separation or is that merely how it has been interpreted by a majority of the court last ruling on the issue? The First Amendment sets forth freedom of religion and that there will be no state religion. It does not directly state that there shall be a separation of church and state. That came along later.

 

The truth is that the constitution says whatever a majority of the justices say it says. That is why the makeup of the court is so important.

Which "key component" of the constitution "ensures" the separation of church and state? Does the First Amendment actually state that there shall be such a separation or is that merely how it has been interpreted by a majority of the court last ruling on the issue? The First Amendment sets forth freedom of religion and that there will be no state religion. It does not directly state that there shall be a separation of church and state. That came along later.

 

The truth is that the constitution says whatever a majority of the justices say it says. That is why the makeup of the court is so important.

 

That is a good description of what the First Amendment actually says, IMHO. :thumb:

Which "key component" of the constitution "ensures" the separation of church and state? Does the First Amendment actually state that there shall be such a separation or is that merely how it has been interpreted by a majority of the court last ruling on the issue? The First Amendment sets forth freedom of religion and that there will be no state religion. It does not directly state that there shall be a separation of church and state. That came along later.

 

The truth is that the constitution says whatever a majority of the justices say it says. That is why the makeup of the court is so important.

 

 

Of course, if you'd read further, you'd see that I more clearly stated what I meant when I replied to AllTell.