The right to privacy was established before Lawrence. The question was whether the court would extend it to cover homosexual conduct. Actually, the majority used due process.In Lawrence v Texas the first step was to establish a “right to privacy” only after which a “compelling state reason” was required.
Can you cite a single case where a Catholic judge found conduct could be outlawed because it did not comply with Catholicism? Just one?Catholic judges may give any reason they please. If the reason is found wanting it will be appealed until it reaches the SC (and the Catholics sitting there). There is no 1A prohibtion on Catholic judges ruling according to their religion. No judge has ever been impeached merely for ruling according to his religious conscience.
Catholic judges may exercise prudence to broaden the acceptance of their rulings, and insure support for promoton to the next level, but this is not a 1A requirement.
And voters need not even exercise that prudence.
Religion does, indeed, “have a seat at the table of government”.
The plantiff had no case until he asserted that his “right to privacy” had been violated by the law. The decision required, first, finding that there was a right involved.The right to privacy was established before Lawrence. The question was whether the court would extend it to cover homosexual conduct. Actually, the majority used due process.
I don’t read minds. But one can certainly see the Catholic thinking in many of the Catholic SC decisions.Can you cite a single case where a Catholic judge found conduct could be outlawed because it did not comply with Catholicism? Just one?
Correct. Asserting a right is very different from establishing a right.The plantiff had no case until he asserted that his “right to privacy” had been violated by the law. The decision required, first, finding that there was a right involved.
I agree you don’t read minds, so you don’t know any judge’s mental process or reasons beyond what he states in his opinions.I don’t read minds. But one can certainly see the Catholic thinking in many of the Catholic SC decisions.
Name one case, just one, where a judge was impeached because he used religion to decide a case.
And finding that the plantiff has the right is a prerequisite to requiring a compelling reason against that right. Compelling reasons are not required otherwise.Correct. Asserting a right is very different from establishing a right.
We could start with the case you cited: Lawrence. Scalia’s dissent centered on an argument that finding for plantiff would undermine laws against sex toys, against polygomy, against homosexual conduct in the military, and against sexual relations outside of marriage. What all of these have in common is that they are proscribed by Catholic teaching.What is one Supreme Court case where one can see the Catholic thinking? Just one? What is the Catholic thinking?
You won’t find any such impeachment because, in fact, there is no such evaluation of judicial decisions apart from the process of appeals which, of course, end at the SC. It is simply one argument against another all the way up. There is no “religious test” of arguments.To name a case where a judge was impeached for using religion as a basis for outlawing behavior, we would first have to find such a case.
So as we seek, Catholics judges can use their religious conscience just like secular judges do.Catholics can certainly be judges, but they decide based on the nation’s laws, not Catholic doctrine.
No. The state needs compelling reasons to do just about anything. No specific right has to be asserted.And finding that the plantiff has the right is a prerequisite to requiring a compelling reason against that right. Compelling reasons are not required otherwise.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutinyNo. The state needs compelling reasons to do just about anything. No specific right has to be asserted.
We could start with the case you cited: Lawrence. Scalia’s dissent centered on an argument that finding for plantiff would undermine laws against sex toys, against polygomy, against homosexual conduct in the military, and against sexual relations outside of marriage. What all of these have in common is that they are proscribed by Catholic teaching.
You won’t find any such impeachment because, in fact, there is no such evaluation of judicial decisions apart from the process of appeals which, of course, end at the SC. It is simply one argument against another all the way up. There is no “religious test” of arguments.
So as we seek, Catholics judges can use their religious conscience just like secular judges do.
And, of course, there not even the prudential constraints on voters using religion to determine their decisions since they don’t have to please anyone but themselves by their decisions.
Thus religion does, indeed, “have a seat at the table of government”.
What is your point about strict scrutiny?
Or Muslims, or Wiccians, or Buddhists, or …Of course, in actuallity, Catholics (for example) do have a “set at the table of government”. Catholics vote. And Catholics sit in the judiciary right up to the Supreme Court.
The 1A does not prevent Catholics from “from taking a seat at the table of government”.
Yet.
Whether or not a denomination is a non-profit is a separate issue from whether or not it’s established. Tax-free status constitutes support. By your logic any Congressional support of any denomination is an act of establishment. It isn’t. If Congress gave tax-free status to one denomination and taxed the rest, that would be an example of establishment. That’s what the framers were trying to prevent…the kind of thing the British were doing back then and to this day. Equal support of all denominations is not establishment. This is why Congress is not in violation of the 1st Amendment by supporting all religious denominations with tax-free status.
- The First does restrain government. That restraint also prevents religion from taking a seat at the table of government. Government can’t establish religion, hence religion can’t get government support for its establishment.
- Establishment means establishment. Comparative advantage means favoring one religion over another. You earlier told us it was unequal treatment of religion - establishing one at the cost of another - that was prohibited. It is any act of establishment.
- If there is only one religion I agree it cannot be given better treatment than any other religion. But the First is not limited to prohibiting comparative advantage. Congress can’t do anything to establish it.
- Establish does not mean giving prefered treatment. It means any act of establishment.
- Congress gives tax free status to non-profits. Organizations with religious conections meet all the requirements of a non-profit, just like the Red Cross or Planned Parenthood do. It is their non-profit status, not their religious nature, that qualifies them as not taxable.
Every non-profit is established. It must exist prior to filing as a non-profit.Whether or not a denomination is a non-profit is a separate issue from whether or not it’s established. Tax-free status constitutes support. By your logic any Congressional support of any denomination is an act of establishment. It isn’t. If Congress gave tax-free status to one denomination and taxed the rest, that would be an example of establishment. That’s what the framers were trying to prevent…the kind of thing the British were doing back then and to this day. Equal support of all denominations is not establishment. This is why Congress is not in violation of the 1st Amendment by supporting all religious denominations with tax-free status.
Scalia was quite obviously defending prohibitions on behaviors proscribed by Catholic religion. He was demonstrating Catholic thinking in this instance.
- Scalias dissent in Lawrence mentioned absolutely nothing about religion as grounds.
You are rationalizing away the obvious. Who ever claimed that religious views were without practical consequences?Everything he mentioned stood as grounds without religion. Religion is welcome to be a free rider on law, but not the driver. Polygamy led to chld welfare problems. Military gays led to morale problems.
Impeachment is the mechanism for removing judges who violate their oaths or otherwise shirk their duty. Name one, just one, judge who has been impeached for facilitating religious proscriptions.
- Impeachment for religious decisions is completely your idea. I didn’t introduce it.
We see it all the time but the example above suffices.
- Where do we see Catholic judges using their religious conscience. Didn’t you tell us you can’t read minds? What decisions mention Catholicism as grounds?
Indeed. And politicians can vote as they please as well, though politicians, like judges, tend to be more politically prudent.Only governemnt is constrained by the First, not citizens. They can vote as they wish. But courts can strike down laws if they depend on religion as grounds for outlawing behavior.
Having a seat does not guanantee getting your way because secularists also have their seats. There are several Christian denominations that are a-ok with abortion, birth control, divorce, and homoseuxal adoption, etc.
- Religion has a seat? Abortion. Birth Control. Divorce. Homosexual adoption. Condoms in school. Pornography. Catholics on the Supreme Court testifying Roe v Wade is settled law.
Open your eyes. Every decision is grounded in religion. Where are the decisions not grounded in religion?
- Where are the decisions grounded in religion?
Show us the decision where religion was used as grounds to outlaw behavior. Just one.Scalia was quite obviously defending prohibitions on behaviors proscribed by Catholic religion. He was demonstrating Catholic thinking in this instance.
You are rationalizing away the obvious. Who ever claimed that religious views were without practical consequences?
Impeachment is the mechanism for removing judges who violate their oaths or otherwise shirk their duty. Name one, just one, judge who has been impeached for facilitating religious proscriptions.
We see it all the time but the example above suffices.
Indeed. And politicians can vote as they please as well, though politicians, like judges, tend to be more politically prudent.
Courts can strike down laws for any reason that pleases them. But in order for your claim that religion doesn’t “have a seat at the table of government” they would have to strike down each and every one of them. They don’t.
So people vote their religious conscience, politicians do likewise, and judges too. Only particular kinds of laws violate the 1A and only those are challenged on 1A grounds.
Having a seat does not guanantee getting your way because secularists also have their seats. There are several Christian denominations that are a-ok with abortion, birth control, divorce, and homoseuxal adoption, etc.
Open your eyes. Every decision is grounded in religion. Where are the decisions not grounded in religion?
Every argument rests on unprovable assumptions, on religious faith, at some level. The only question is how far each arguement is laid out and which religious beliefs lay at the bottom of the argument.Show us the decision where religion was used as grounds to outlaw behavior. Just one.
You cannot back that up, as you proved in our earlier debate. You back this up by claiming that people who utilize historical precedent are neo-nazi Darwinists.Every argument rests on unprovable assumptions, on religious faith, at some level. The only question is how far each arguement is laid out and which religious beliefs lay at the bottom of the argument.
I acknowledge you don’t know of any cases where non-compliance with religion was grounds for outlawing behavior.Every argument rests on unprovable assumptions, on religious faith, at some level. The only question is how far each arguement is laid out and which religious beliefs lay at the bottom of the argument.
This is intrinsic to human thought, not merely a property of law. Pick a decision yourself and I can find the unstated assumptions behind it.
Even the very concept of rights, as we have seen already, is based in religion. Every atheist who spouts about his rights is expressing his faith.
Regarding the 1A, only a particular class of religious requirements are prohibited from being enacted into law. The original concept was to prohibit government enforcing of the first four of the ten commandments. The idea was simply to avoid repeating the religious wars of Europe. It was ever intended to expunge religion from law, generally.
And, for the most part, this remains the case today though there are those like Boies and yourself who would like to see a legal rejection of all Christian influence in the law.