She is not supposed to render legal opinions at this point. It’s not evasion. It’s doing the right thing.
The English common law is derived from a smattering of old Saxon law in existence when Normans conquered England, a bit of biblical law and a great deal of canon law. There is no “secular source” of our law except for the occasional aberrant legal eructations of wayward justices and legislators. Even commercial law is largely derived from the bible.
Her personal opinion would not be a “legal” opinion. Is this not obvious? No one asks her to render a verdict on any specific problem. Only her general attitude.
Oh, please. Our society is not based upon the christian faith. I suggest you to read the “Treaty of Tripoli”
which has been unanimously ratified by the US Senate, and which explicitly declares that the US is not in any way based upon the Bible, or the Christian faith.
In other words, the US Constitution (which should not be confused with the Declaration of Independence) - is the legal ground for our republic and it expressly declares that we are a secular society, where each religion (or the lack of it) is equally protected and respected (see the First Amendment). So the personal opinion of Barrett is not allowed to play any part in her judgments and legal reasoning.
The US was explicitly created to escape any kind of religious persecution, so the personal views must be held personal, and of course can be freely declared and discussed, but cannot play any part in the legal system.
The Constitution grants and upholds the concept of privacy, and as such the woman’s right to have dominion over her body (including abortion). That the “right to privacy” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is not relevant. The “right to own property” is also not mentioned, because the Founding Fathers took these principles axiomatically true.
PS: The Bible is also not an “original” document. Only a very small part is “new” in it. The rest was “borrowed” from other views, from Hammurabi to Confucius and the rest. To fact that our judges and justices are not allowed to get sidetracked into some religious views protects ALL of us, you included. Your rights should be protected just as much as any other worldview. And that is the way it should be.
I see. Usually when people on here do not disclose their religion, it signifies that they’re not Catholic. If so in your case, it comes as no surprise that you would not want to admit the truth; which is that American law is based on the English Common Law, which is based on ancient Saxon law, biblical principles and a great deal of canon law.
But this “treaty of tripoli” aside, if you research with anything resembling an open mind, you will find that what I say is true. There are some secular inclusions, but no “secular roots” in American law.
In any event, the language you cite in the treaty is disputed since the English version of the treaty does not contain that language. It appears to be an addition in Arabic only, widely suspected to have been added by the Muslims to make it more acceptable. In any event it does not reference the LAWS of the U.S. It only says the GOVERNMENT of the U.S. is not based on Christianity.
Regardless, the treaty was broken by the Muslim counterparts and void.
We are not talking about the origin of each individual law (which is totally irrelevant), but the origin of the US legal system. Which was clearly based on the desire or the original settlers, who wanted to escape and avoid ANY kind of religious system, and so they established a fully secular legal framework - regardless of the ancient origins of the individual laws.
Sure, that is fine. But the laws were established by the Constitution, which is also a fully secular document. The role of the SC justices is to uphold the Constitution, and not to interpret it according to their personal religious point of view. That is why the reluctance of Barrett is so disturbing. I am hopeful that she will follow the other justices and leave her religion convictions in the “cloak room” when she dons the judicial robe.
Now we can hope that the general tendency will still be true. The SC justices are not just highly intelligent people, but also have a firmly established sense of protecting the Constitution. So it is not surprising that the justices - no matter who placed them of the Court are usually “middle of the road”, and do not want to force their individual point of view. One can only hope.
Then why did they have people swear oaths on the bible?
You really ought to study up on this. The U.S. legal system was adopted wholesale from England with almost no modifications. It was not designed by the original settlers at all.
Nobody ever leaves his/her religion in the “cloak room”. Even purported “secularists” have mental systems of right and wrong that they derived from the surrounding religious-based mores of the society.
Then why do the Democrats have their candidates vetted by NARAL? It is precisely to determine whether the candidates’ individual point of view squares with the party’s pro-abortion mores.
Irrelevant custom. The religion based “I solemnly swear…” and “So help me God” is not mandatory any more. The new version of “I solemnly affirm…” are both legal and acceptable. The phrase “In God we trust” was placed of the legal tenders less than 100 years ago. Moreover, they are not required to place their hands on the bible.
The Constitution was. And that is the basis of the US system - regardless of the origin of the individual laws. Why do I have to repeat this ad nauseam?
They are not supposed to base their verdict on their individual convictions, but on the Constitution.
Why are you so adamant of trying to squeeze religion into the Constitution, when it is simply not applicable?
As soon as I see the expression of “pro-abortion”, I leave. It is very bad form to willfully misinterpret other people’s view. Or maybe you are unable to see the difference between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion”. If that is the case then I am even less inclined to have a dialog with you.
Why are some so determined to imply that the constitution has no basis in Christian morality? Human laws are based on and support natural and moral law. To ignore that relationship leads to very subjective and arbitrary laws.
Only very recently have those expressions been “secularized”, and the use of the bible for oaths was the practice until fairly recently.
You repeat it because you want to, but you’re wrong every time you say it. The Constitution is only one part of U.S. law, and most of that comes from widely-accepted religious precepts held by the people. The court system, legislative system and virtually all of the law was imported from England. It was definitely not invented by secularists here. Many state constitutions, including my own, directly say the initial law of the state is the Common Law of England. Most of the Common Law of England was based on Canon Law.
Because Christian morality limits us from doing whatever our latest whim dictates that we do. It constricts behavior.
Imagine for a moment if this nation had been founded by Japanese, and the nation adopted a constitution based on Bushido? It would be very, very different from what it is. We are fortunate that we live in a country that was based on Judeo-Christian principles as the same were viewed by the Anglosphere.
Maybe you should have quoted my entire comment about the basis of natural and moral laws.
You seem to want to limit Christian morality to the Bible, but there has been extensive philosophical work done by folks like St. Thomas Aquinas that connect Christian morality to laws and government. Jesus himself was not interested in secular government so it is not surprising that the Bible is not a template for government.
It was, and Senator Feinstein was much more careful and even more human this time. For a moment I event though she could vote to approve the nomination. Then today, Senator Feinstein was caught on an open microphone muttering about Judge Barrett’s faith again. Politics is her religion.
Nitpicking, but true. She is not a “justice” yet. And she is still an applicant to the Court. As such she is not in the position to select which questions to answer and which one not. If the republican senators have a minimal backbone… which they do not, she would have no chance to be confirmed before the election.
Oh. Sorry. You said: “ And to see non-Catholics in the political sphere criticizing Barrett for Her Catholicism is unfortunate. “. I was thinking non-Catholics generally.
Let me assure you: paraphrasing the doctor who was treating Ronald Reagan after the assassination attempt, saying we’re all Republicans today, many of us non-Catholics are “Catholic “ in our support of Barrett
If she is the follow the Ginsberg Rule, she has an obligation not to answer questions regarding cases that may end up in the SCOTUS.
“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” - Ginsberg
The Ginsberg Rule was established by then Senator Joe Biden. Democrat senators violated that rule at times in their questioning of Barrett.
Kudos to Barrett for following the rule.