To my way of thought, that demonstrates his integrity. He knows which sphere of his life his religious beliefs apply to…and which they do not apply to. He has faith in God…but when he’s making legal rulings, he doesn’t let that religious belief overrule his understanding of the law.
This is a good thing!
Also Mario Cuomo.
Noted, but I am highly dubious about that claim. Piety and devotion doesn’t necessarily involve a lawyerly or phariseetic dedication to every crossed t or dotted i of church doctrine.
While I agree with you, that excluding a adherents of a specific religion from serving on the Supreme court is a very bad thing, I do think that there is an advantage to having a diverse selection of judges on the Supreme court. While I have nothing against, Catholic or Jewish perspectives, I think that fact that of the 9 Justices currently are members of the court (I’m still counting Scalia until a replacement if found), 6 are Catholic and the remaining 3 are Jewish is problematic. By the same token that I feel that there is an advantage to having a black justice or a “wise Latina” I think that there would be an advantage in having Scalia’s replacement come from a non-Catholic, non-Jewish background.
Of course. I never suggested otherwise.
When I said " I would absolutely vote in favor of laws saying that Church-run hospitals can’t use their religious beliefs as an excuse for providing a full range of care, if they take public funds.", I was hypothetically proposing a hypothetical law that would specifically counteract the RFRA (among other things).
If it makes you feel better, you may also assume that, in my hypothetical, I have already voted in favor of ditching the RFRA.
I bet if you were to read up on the subjunctive mood, it would help you relax more.
Ask me again when African American judges occupy 7 of the 9 chairs.
But to elaborate on my response - I don’t have a problem with Catholic Supremes in general, I just want a broad range of backgrounds and philosophies to be represented in their discussions. I would not want a Court that was unbalanced towards Jewish or African American judges, either. I think it’s healthy that we’re moving to a better balance of men and women. I think it would be healthier if we had a broader range of religious experience, including athiest and agnostics.
You also said, and I quote, “refuse services to a woman miscarrying her baby”. Which is exactly what they did. Don’t try and move the goalposts now. And as for trying to save the pregnancy, they didn’t try that either, now did they? They simply turned them away.
Split hairs much?
Trump would be right about Curiel, if Curiel was not only a life member of an organization proclaiming that God favored Mexicans, but believed that his chances for eternal life were directly proportional to the depth of that belief and adherence to its tenets, and took part in a weekly ritual where he ate the flesh and drank the blood of some Mexican hero, in the belief that it made him a better person.
I have to agree. I hate to disparage the holy orders that first set up these hospitals, but considering they’ve turned into rather more secular corporations I can feel more comfortable being a prick about this. The Catholic Church has to be substantially driven out of the USA’s health care.
Why? Because the physician didn’t actively dislodge her IUD himself, so was not responsible for her injury? Isn’t negligence on the part of a physician still a kind of responsibility?
OK, say we buy that. How about fraud, or failure to deliver services? On the part of the insurer, hospital, physician–any or all of them.
Why not? We have after all stopped nominating Protestants, which indicates some kind of weird problem.
I didn’t know integrity had such exacting standards or fast-moving goalposts.
That would probably get some overheated responses in certain quarters. Cries of “anti-Catholic bigotry,” namely.
If I were a US Senator, and I refused as a personal policy to vote for the confirmation of any Roman Catholic to a given panel which was already majority Roman Catholic, on the theory that the Church is overrepresented, how would I be in violation of the Constitution?
What is this panel about? Are religious beliefs relevant? Otherwise, I imagine that the No Religious Test Clause would apply.
And it might violate the Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on religious beliefs.
Perhaps someone more familiar with legal matters could offer a better answer.
Real Senators might very well hold this view and vote that way…but would be savvy enough not to admit it publicly! “The nominee doesn’t have the depth of judicial experience necessary” instead of “There are already too many Catholics on the bench.”
But if a Senator did openly say such a thing…what remedy is there? Could someone conceivably sue, because the “no religious test” clause was violated? Extremely unlikely. It would be nice if the Senate censured him for bad conduct, but even that isn’t to be counted on. (And, alas, his constituents back home might just as likely agree with him as to vote him out of office because of it.)
Let’s say, an appellate court.
The issue I have with this interpretation is that there are rarely any defined spheres in religion. The expectation in Christianity is that you will be a good Christian at your job.
However, despite popular belief, Christianity doesn’t teach that you can force others to follow your religion. You’re supposed to preach. When someone chooses to sin, that is their issue, not yours. There is no rule saying “You must not allow abortion to become the law of the land” for example.
It is my understanding that most religions are like this. The few that aren’t, I’m okay with not taking office. Not because of some religious test, but because their religion would effectively forbid them from doing the job. If they choose to do the job, then they aren’t a devout follower of that restrictive religion.
In other words, a Catholic judge is still being a perfectly good Catholic when he upholds the law on abortion. He is free to not participate in it himself, but he is not compelling the other person to have an abortion just because the law allows it.
And I apologize if this was a tangent. I just had a thought and wanted to post it.
I understand that. But, speaking as a Catholic, do you think that it is ethical by Catholic standards?
That’s the issue I have with you treating ethics as being personal. It’s also institutional. You have ethics you follow as a lawyer, and you have ethics you follow as a Catholic. You talk about the former, so I think you could talk about the latter.
What I’ve read before suggests that Catholicism teaches a duty to treat a dying patient. There may be some exceptions if the patient themselves doesn’t want to be treated, depending on what I read. But that’s it.
For example, this from the Catholic Health association appears to say that there is a requirement to treat due to the sanctity of life. Only those acts which add increased suffering are wrong.
Not that familiar with it, so I’ll decline this one. However, I imagine it would violate the Religious Test clause. Again, perhaps someone with more legal expertise could answer.
Sorry for this hijack, but is “phariseetic” really the adjectival form of Pharisee(s)? I find it oddly intriguing…
It depends, and can’t be determined without an exam. But it is possible.
However, I would hazard to say that if a guy were bleeding from his penis, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because they aren’t baby factories, and OH MY GOD BLEEDING FROM THE PENIS!
ETA:
I am going to refer to my IUD as “the devil’s pogo stick” from now on. Well done, sirrah!
You’ll have to ask Phyllis Stein.