I'd like to lead you all in a prayer...

[WussGawd]

...to ask God to get rid of Pat Robertson.

Pat Robertson prays to have Supreme Court Justices Removed (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/15/robertson.ap/index.html)

I'm not sure how to react to this one...though the words f'ing a-hole leap to mind at first thought.

Since Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, he's basically asking his sheep, er, followers to pray for people to die. Doesn't seem very Christian to me.

[albionmoonlight]

It is a shame that the judicial branch--which is supposed to be the most non-political branch--has become so political in people's minds.

People want certain judges on or off the courts, not because they believe that those people will be good or bad judges, but because those judges agree or disagree with those people's political views on issues like abortion and sodomy.

I see this problem with both liberals and conservatives.

Pick your president and congressmen based on their political views--not your judges.

Oh--and Pat Robertson will be treated with mercy and justice by his God. He had better hope for enough of the former to overcome the latter.

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by WussGawd
...to ask God to get rid of Pat Robertson.



LOL

[Fritz]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
It is a shame that the judicial branch--which is supposed to be the most non-political branch--has become so political in people's minds.

People want certain judges on or off the courts, not because they believe that those people will be good or bad judges, but because those judges agree or disagree with those people's political views on issues like abortion and sodomy.

I see this problem with both liberals and conservatives.

Pick your president and congressmen based on their political views--not your judges.


Many "views" may be politicized, but they are often core moral issues as well. How a judge views things is very important. Frankly, I don't care how fair a judge is if I feel his moral compass is out of whack.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by WussGawd
Since Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, he's basically asking his sheep, er, followers to pray for people to die. Doesn't seem very Christian to me.

Or that they step down. Isn't that a reasonable interpretation as well?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ksyrup beat me to it -- they are always free to resign / retire.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
Many "views" may be politicized, but they are often core moral issues as well. How a judge views things is very important. Frankly, I don't care how fair a judge is if I feel his moral compass is out of whack.

That may be true, but the most controversial of these views are those that are not universally shared across the political spectrum. For example, we have many people on this board who believe that homosexuality is immoral, while we also have many others that believe that discriminating against homosexuals is immoral. We probably even have some that believe both. Now, when there is no consensus, who has the authority to say which side's "moral compass" is out of whack?

As far as I'm concerned, the ideal political makeup of the court would be three conservatives, three moderates, and three liberals. I don't really understand what the conservatives are whining about - they already have a 5-4 majority on the court.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Ksyrup beat me to it -- they are always free to resign / retire.

Generally speaking, most of the Supremes resign/retire for reasons of ill health.

[Tekneek]

The SCOTUS is supposed to make interpretations based on law, not Christian dogma.

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Tekneek
The SCOTUS is supposed to make interpretations based on law, not Christian dogma.

Right...and generally speaking, even with their current makeup, they do.

[Tekneek]

It is disappointing that a recognized religious leader would pray for people to lose their jobs, when they seem to be doing a proper one.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by WussGawd
Generally speaking, most of the Supremes resign/retire for reasons of ill health.

Or because they get too old to handle the duties of a Supreme Court Justice.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
That may be true, but the most controversial of these views are those that are not universally shared across the political spectrum. For example, we have many people on this board who believe that homosexuality is immoral, while we also have many others that believe that discriminating against homosexuals is immoral. We probably even have some that believe both. Now, when there is no consensus, who has the authority to say which side's "moral compass" is out of whack?


Indirectly, the American voter. The idea that I vote for candidate (party) X who represents certain values. A judge appointed by that person would more or less hold similar values (not always the case, I know). In this way I think a "political" appointment more or less does the job of putting certain value systems on the bench.

I should also say that "moral" as I mentioned above is not the appropriate term. I am really talking about values.



I don't really understand what the conservatives are whining about - they already have a 5-4 majority on the court.

I guess we would all be happy if the court sided with our view. 5-4 is no assurance.

[Subby]

Why is this even an issue? So he prayed for the removal of Supreme Court Justices. Big deal.

God stopped listening to televangelists a long time ago...

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
Indirectly, the American voter. The idea that I vote for candidate (party) X who represents certain values. A judge appointed by that person would more or less hold similar values (not always the case, I know). In this way I think a "political" appointment more or less does the job of putting certain value systems on the bench.


That is true, but it's also true that the reason the Constitution delineates certain rights is to prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minority. Part of the Court's job is to make sure those rights are protected, even when their application is unpopular.

[sabotai]

I have a gut feeling that God's answer to Pat Robertson will be "No".

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
That is true, but it's also true that the reason the Constitution delineates certain rights is to prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minority. Part of the Court's job is to make sure those rights are protected, even when their application is unpopular.

I don't follow you, unless you are suggesting that a majority court would be tyrannical.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
I don't follow you, unless you are suggesting that a majority court would be tyrannical.

You basically made the argument that voters, by a majority vote for the candidates they support, indirectly determine the "moral compass." My point was that sometimes, the opinion of a majority of voters is to not recognize the guaranteed Constitutional rights of those groups they don't like, and disapprove of, and one of the jobs of the Court is to make sure those rights are protected, regardless of what the majority wants.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Subby

God stopped listening to televangelists a long time ago...

I think it was that whole Oral Roberts fiasco when he went public that God was holding his wife for ransom. God kinda wanted that to be a little more low key than how Oral handled it.