I don’t believe we’ve ever had an openly atheist justice, I would say at least 90% of them historically have been genuinely religious. To some degree some element of your religious upbringing will invariably affect how you think, even in a legal sense. But there’s also jurisprudence and constitutional law and norms, and I do think historically most justices have followed that and not just simply opened a bible to make decisions for them. I don’t see any compelling evidence ACB breaks the mold in this regard.
That’s an excluded middle argument. I carefully didn’t say that being religious or having your religion impact your ethical framework is a problem.
However, it’s also not just about opening a bible and pulling a rationale out, either. There are many, many ways Christianity can be prioritized or used as a justification for a legal ruling that fall into the middle. The more you believe your religion to be a universal truth, and that the country would just be better if Christian values were accepted by all, the bigger the danger.
I don’t know about ACB either, but given her affiliations, I get the concern.
At the risk of conspiratorial thinking, she was chosen because she didn’t have any evidence laying around. The reason conservative judges need the imprimatur of the Federalist Society is that they are strongly vetted to be 100% ideologues with little evidence of such.
Yeah, maybe she’s great. But she was chosen by Trump, and given the stamp of the FS and HF, and she belongs to (what I consider) a koo-koo-bananas Catholic splinter group that speaks in tongues and pushes female subservience hard.
I’m just saying, if you find something that looks like a rusty hand-grenade on your Normandy beach vacation, don’t take it home and put in on your mantle.
And many Christian activists tend to try to speak for all Christians. They claim that it’s a Christian country, since Christianity is the most common belief, then they go on to advocate for their flavor of Christianity as though all Christians agreed with them.
Agreed, and when people with tremendous power feel similarly, we have a potential problem.
And yet being a member of a “koo-koo bananas Catholic” group that “pushes female subservience” seems to be completely compatible with being a professor of law, a Circuit Court judge, and a justice of the Supreme Court.
Who woulda thought?
Just for reference, since I am a lifelong Catholic (although definitely not a People of Praise, or Opus Dei, or anything like that, member), People of Praise, and the whole charismatic thing, are differences of style more than substance. Well, okay, perhaps that’s not true of Opus Dei. But PoP is mostly into a style of prayer and worship that I personally am not comfortable with, but in no way differs from Catholic Church doctrine, including doctrine and teaching on religious freedom.
Republicans woulda thought. I’m not saying she shouldn’t have a job. I’m saying she shouldn’t be in a position of power.
Why?
The Constitution explicitly bars, in Article VI, any religious test, for any office. IANAL, but I understand that the Supreme Court has upheld this, and extended the bar to the states, on more than one occasion.
And yet you seem to be arguing for it.
And I don’t have a problem with a Catholic justice (any more than any other religion, at least). I’d prefer that only rational people get involved, which, IMHO, excludes PoP.
I’m not saying that she doesn’t have the right to serve. I’m saying that she shouldn’t serve, and that she’s a terrible appointment because she’s a fucking kook. Is that difficult to understand?
Unfortunately true. Equally unfortunately, many a-religious (non-religious, atheists, what-have-you) people tend to believe those Christian activists when they claim to speak for all Christians.
I might (I do, in fact) agree with you that she was a terrible appointment.
I do not agree with you that she was a terrible appointment because she is a Catholic, and you’re walking right up to the line of saying that outright.
And it seems that, for you “prefer[ring] that only rational people get involved” precludes Catholics and others who are actively religious.
Considering that the mainline Church doesn’t have any problem with, for example, lobbying heavily to have its own religiously-derived definition of marriage enshrined in secular law, that’s not super reassuring.
You’re wrong. I said that I have no problem with a Catholic. Please reread my posts.
I have a problem with a Catholic splinter-cult that speaks in tongues and thinks women should be happily subservient.
But of course she can be appointed. So could any rando. Doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea.