Originally posted by: Strk
They're there to interpret the law, not represent people.
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: Strk
They're there to interpret the law, not represent people.
in theory they should represent the disparate views of ALL the people.
That's one reason there are 9 of them, not one.
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: Strk
They're there to interpret the law, not represent people.
in theory they should represent the disparate views of ALL the people.
That's one reason there are 9 of them, not one.
Originally posted by: Tom
5 of the 9 are Catholic.
2 are Jewish.
2 for everything else.
Somehow, doesn't seem too representative..
Originally posted by: Tom
The political process of the President nominating, and the Senate's role, is where the representation of the people comes into the selection process. It isn't true that the justices aren't supposed to represent the people's diversity of viewpoints as to what the law is, the process is designed to introduce stability and the need to maintain political favor, but not to completely eliminate the relationship between the people, and their law.
The Constitution and the law ultimately belongs to the people, not the Supreme Court.
My point about the number of Catholics isn't that it's necessarily a problem, but more that it's an odd byproduct of the attempts of the Republicans to use the court for their own political purposes.
And since there's a good possibility that the next Supreme Court appointee may be Hispanic, we could have 6 Catholic justices in the future.
Instead of making comments that don't reflect reality, like the court exists in a vacuum, handing down interpretations from on high, why not a little discussion about the wisdom of having a court that in at least this one respect is becoming less representative of the people ?
Originally posted by: brandonb
Alot of people in politics default their religious beliefs to "Catholic"... John Kerry said he was Catholic, but according to his views, hes about as far away from a typical Catholic as you can get.
Just because someone says they are Catholic doesn't really mean squat these days. Lets worry about something else...
-A Conservative Christian
Originally posted by: Tom
5 of the 9 are Catholic.
2 are Jewish.
2 for everything else.
Somehow, doesn't seem too representative..
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: Strk
They're there to interpret the law, not represent people.
in theory they should represent the disparate views of ALL the people.
That's one reason there are 9 of them, not one.
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
maybe they have 9 justices to ensure impartiality on individual matters not be representative? Maybe the founders did not want a single arbiter of the laws?
THE OP is silly.
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
maybe they have 9 justices to ensure impartiality on individual matters not be representative? Maybe the founders did not want a single arbiter of the laws?
THE OP is silly.
ask yourself why more justices would ensure impartiality ? I agree that's part of the reason for having more than one, but the reason it has that effect depends on the diversity of opinion of the justices. So the less diversity the less likelihood there is for an impartial decision.
It wasn't better, in terms of diversity, when the court was almost all white protestant men, but it seems particularly weird that a majority of justices are all the same religion, even though that religion isn't practiced by a majority of citizens.
I'm not trying to make it more significant than it is, but I'm willing to bet that if the next justice who is nominated is catholic more people will pay attention than have so far, particularly if one of the two remaining protestants would be replaced by an additional catholic. And that's fairly likely to happen given that Justice Stevens is one of the oldest justices.
info
Where is it stated that the make up of the court is representative of the people.Originally posted by: Tom
That's true, my opinion is not really based on them being catholic, it's the strangeness of having a particular religious minority having what could constitute a ruling majority, and a good possibility that the Court will go even farther in that direction.
Even if they defer to the Constitution over their religious convictions, that still leaves a great deal of interpretation up to them. And we have to assume they accept some of the tenants of catholicism or they wouldn't call themselves catholic.
There's quite a substantial difference in the way catholics and protestants think about the authority of religion, and where the power of the church resides, let alone catholics and non-Christians.
I only bring that up to illustrate that it isn't a trivial difference, not because I have anything against catholics.
Since the President nominates justices for the Supreme Court, he or she is ultimately responsible for seeing that the make up of the Court is representative of the people, not his political party or to try to affect the balance of the Court to some political end.
Seems to me it's a legitimate question to ask why lately Presidents are so attracted to catholic judges ? The trend that results in us having 5 catholic justices isn't some strange coincidence, it's a deliberate decision.
Personally I have a good deal of faith in the integrity of most of the current justices, so I doubt the inappropriate intent of the Presidents will be successful.
Originally posted by: Donny Baker
LOL!
Coming from...
-A Conservative Christian
How do you know what his personal beliefs are?
Originally posted by: Tom
Where is it stated that the make up of the court is representative of the people.
Also, to force a religion filter starts stepping onto the Constitution where the government shall not dictate a religion.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
That's kind of my point, except in reverse. How did we end up with 5 Catholic justices if no filter was being applied ?
And as I've said several times, the founders gave the selection of justices to the political branches for a reason, that reason is so the justices represent the people, but not in as direct a way as having the people elect the justices.
If anyone can't see that, then you need a lesson in civics. --- no if anyone fails to see things as you do that has nothing to do wuth what they know or don`t know! Each and every person is entitled to there own opinion regardless of what you think!