FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Justice John Paul Stevens to retire (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Justice John Paul Stevens to retire
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Pretty imminent, though it's been guessed for some time.

Obama's second court appointment.

Will cause a lot of sturm, drang, et. al with conservatives but will almost assuredly shift the court further to the right given Steven's positional and representative clout.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Armoth
Member
Member # 4752

 - posted      Profile for Armoth   Email Armoth         Edit/Delete Post 
Coolness. We were just speaking about this in class. Too cool that it happened the next day...

But kind of a pain since a lot of what they teach in law school is predictions of the way the court holds on things based on the justices. Sotomayor was one wrench, here's another.

Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Obama will appoint, above all else, a pragmatist, regardless of his or her official political affiliation.

Regardless though, if he can't cram through whatever nominee he wants, when Democrats have 59 seats, it will reset some of the clout Democrats claimed for themselves with the health care bill's passage. If they try to filibuster, call them on it. Holding up a circuit court judge, while reprehensible in my eyes, is still not quite so bad as holding up a Supreme Court nomination. It would behoove Obama to pick someone who can stand up to the Republican smear machine.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Pretty imminent, though it's been guessed for some time.

Obama's second court appointment.

Will cause a lot of sturm, drang, et. al with conservatives but will almost assuredly shift the court further to the right given Steven's positional and representative clout.

To the right?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Sure. Justice Stevens is pretty liberal.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
Not as liberal as whoever Obama picks.

But at least the confirmation process won't get bogged down. They'll just deem him confirmed.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, because his other choices -- his Cabinet, his appointees -- have been so overwhelmingly liberal.

I predict he'll pick someone middle of the road, with some strong opinions pleasing to both sides. And that person will still be blocked.

I'd almost like to see him choose a total right-wing candidate, just to watch the Republicans, Tea Partiers and FOX fall over themselves trying to figure out how to oppose it.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
*sings*

Never to the left! Ever to the right!

/sings

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
How liberal is Stevens?

I think the most interesting thing about that graph is the trend directions. What caused the great schism of the mid-late 80s? Was it Bork? Iran-Contra? The rise of the moral majority? Something cultural (vice political)? Maybe Rehnquist replacing Berger as the Chief Justice in 1986?

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Not as liberal as whoever Obama picks.

But at least the confirmation process won't get bogged down. They'll just deem him confirmed.

[Roll Eyes]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Not as liberal as whoever Obama picks.

But at least the confirmation process won't get bogged down. They'll just deem him confirmed.

You should look up what "deem and pass" means. You're wrong in a couple ways.

1. Deem and pass is only used in the House, not the Senate, and the Senate has to confirm a nominee, not the House.

2. Even if they did use a self-executing rule, there must still be a vote. Deem and pass isn't a legislative decree without a vote, like you seem to think it is. It's a smokescreen, sure, but there's still a vote.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Not as liberal as whoever Obama picks.

But at least the confirmation process won't get bogged down. They'll just deem him confirmed.

... alright, let me at least try to help you out on this one, because you're really, really wrong.

1. The SCOTUS getting a rightward shift: Not only is Stevens the most liberal member of the court, he's the leader of the liberal wing. He provides not only the intellectual basis for many decisions, but even in his dissents considered intolerably liberal now, he creates the framework for future shifts to the left, in the style of Holmes and Brandeis on free speech or Harlan on civil rights. Considering that Elena Kagan, etc, and other more implacably middle-road candidates are the most likely picks, we're looking at a rightward slant approach.

This current court has over the past decade issued numerous 5-4 decisions which placed at least some degree of constraints on executive power. Stevens was not just in the majority of these cases, he was the intellectual vox who went out to justify these limits. He even joined with Scalia's dissent in Hamdi, where together they argued that the president could not detain u.s. citizens without charge as 'enemy combatants.' you have to charge them and convict them.

If you have no conceptualization at this point of how this could mean a rightward slant for the court, then your categorical mental opposition to Obama has essentially blinded you to a realistic apprehension of realistic ideological divides.

2. the confirmation process 'not getting bogged down:' re: lyrhawn's post. no deem and pass action, still will be vote. There is utterly no guarantee that the Republicans would be unable to clutter this through procedural motion, symbolic protest, etc. — since it is tactically advisable for them to do so in most expected outcomes, it is likely but not assured.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Considering that Elena Kagan, etc, and other more implacably middle-road candidates are the most likely picks, we're looking at a rightward slant approach.
hey check it out

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/09/2298208.aspx

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
Curses.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
This is all still part of that really ingenious Muslim plot of Obama's. This is just to throw us off the scent even more!
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Conservative reactions to Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination characterize her as an extreme liberal, not as any sort of moderate. The single most crucial issue in evaluating any nominee for the Supreme Court is whether he or she is a strict constructionist--abiding by the constitutional definition of the authority of the Supreme Court to rule on whether laws are in harmony with the constitution--or as being someone who feels the courts can be used for social engineering, to push a liberal, so-called "progressive" agenda.

quote:
David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society and former congressman from Indiana: "I'm deeply disappointed that President Obama has chosen to nominate an individual who has demonstrated a lack of adherence to the limits of the Constitution and a desire to utilize the court system to enact her beliefs of social engineering. Solicitor General Kagan has been nominated with no judicial experience, a mere two years of private law practice, and only a year as Solicitor General of the United States. She is one of the most inexperienced nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory."


He adds: "Ms. Kagan's public comments should be highly disturbing to all Americans as they show what kind of a Justice she will be. She has been a vocal opponent of military recruiters on the Harvard Law School campus, placing political correctness above national security in a time of war. Ms. Kagan abandoned the will of the American people and the Congress by challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, proving she will merely rule based on her personal political preferences and not the law. President Obama has, once again, nominated an individual who places a higher premium on political progressivism than adherence to the set of laws that have made this country strong and free. For someone tragically inexperienced and activist, Ms. Kagan represents President Obama's ideal of transforming the Supreme Court into a vehicle for social reform and judicial affirmative action."

Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20004519-504564.html
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I disagree with your fundamental assumption of what the most important issue is when evaluating a nominee. Your little false dichotomy there is wrong.

I also disagree with McIntosh. He's making a lot of assumptions about what she might do as a judge, while attacking her for never having been one. He has zero evidence on which to base claims on what she will do as a judge. The key difference there, I think, is between what she believes is right and wrong, and what she believes is constitutional and unconstitutional. Those things might overlap, but they aren't necessarily identical, and he's conflating them casually.

You're going to have to define your version what "strict constructionist" means and what you think social engineering is, in this context. Constitutional philosophies vary widely beyond the two extremes you've presented.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Samprimary, let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to argue with the general thrust of your argument about Stevens being a very liberal Justice. From what I know of him, I agree with you there. Just, one thing you said struck me as odd.

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

1. The SCOTUS getting a rightward shift: Not only is Stevens the most liberal member of the court, he's the leader of the liberal wing. ...

...He even joined with Scalia's dissent in Hamdi, where together they argued that the president could not detain u.s. citizens without charge as 'enemy combatants.' you have to charge them and convict them.

I am a little confused how the second paragraph is used as an illustration of your point. Specifically, because Stevens joined with the man who is generally considered to be one of, if not the, most conservative members of the Supreme Court. I don't quite see how this is proof positive that Stevens is a hardcore liberal. What am I missing?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
he was instrumental in forming the ruling in favor of hamdi. It's scalia's dissent because he wrote the dissent for the court in that particular case.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Right. But Scalia's dissent in this case doesn't make him liberal, right? I guess I'm just not certain how the Hamdi case is a good illustration of right or left leaning Justices.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Armoth
Member
Member # 4752

 - posted      Profile for Armoth   Email Armoth         Edit/Delete Post 
Scalia's dissent in Hamdi tells you more about Scalia than it does about Stevens. Scalia stuck to his textualism/originalism guns even though it led to a more liberal result.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
It does! I mention it because stevens' involvement in that particular case was pivotal. He was able to wring the court over in favor of Hamdi and work against the whole imperial-executive-cold-storage-of-human-beings tilt that the last few years had inexorably brought us to. He was a powerful force for the 'liberal' (or however you would want to term it; more circumstantially it would even have been the 'anti-bush-imperial-executive') side of things. He was an important force in a court that currently swings abnormally to the right in comparison to popular opinion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Here is another angle that was not immediately apparent. If Kagan is approved as Supreme Court Justice, then there will be no Protestants on the Supreme Court. Kagan is Jewish, as is Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The other five justices are Roman Catholic.

Diana Butler Bass, a liberal Protestant, said in lamenting Kagan's nomination:
quote:
I'm not lamenting the loss of representation; I don't think that Supreme Court picks should be ruled by affirmative action. Rather, the primary qualification should be that the person knows the law, understands the law, upholds the law, and possesses a certain sort of empathy for the way that the law impacts the lives of Americans. Accordingly, anyone--a Protestant, Jew, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist--can be an excellent Supreme Court justice.

However, the faith in which one was raised or which one practices forms the basis of one's worldview--the way in which a person interprets contexts and circumstances. It involves nuances regarding theology, outlook, moral choice, ethics, devotion, and community. All religious traditions provide these outlooks to their adherents, and they are present in both overt and subtle ways through our lives. I'm not lamenting the numerical absence of Protestants. Instead, I will miss the fact that there will be no one with Protestant sensibilities on the court, no one who understands the nuances of one of America's oldest and most traditional religions--and the religion that deeply shaped American culture and law.

. . . .

First, Protestants hold central the idea that nothing should or can impede individual conscience. From Martin Luther's clarion call at the time of the Reformation, "Here I stand, I can do no other," Protestants of all sorts emphasize the free expression of individual rights and conscience. Those individual rights can--and do--empower liberation and freedom against corrupt institutions and unjust states.

Second, Protestants believe that symbols like the cross and the flag mean something. Going back to the days when Protestants stripped churches of religious statues and painted over icons, they believed that symbols convey the meaning of the thing depicted. Crosses, icons, flags, paintings, and other representations cannot be separated from their theological or political intention. Thus, Protestants have historically fought over the power of symbols and their meaning in public space. As a result, they often argue for empty public space because they understand the internal power of symbols.

Third, Protestants (in partnership with free-thinking Enlightenment philosophers) created the concept of the separation of church and state in the 17th and 18th centuries. Indeed, some historians argue that the Constitution's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses--the phrases that guide the relationship between religion and politics--might well be the most important contributions of American Protestantism to Christian theology.

Link: http://blog.beliefnet.com/christianityfortherestofus/2010/05/elena-kagan-the-supreme-court-and-a-lament-for-american-protestantism.html
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
We've already discussed this in a different thread.

An equal argument could be made for an agnostic or atheist on the high court. When it comes to where they fall on major legal issues that the Court is likely to decide, the difference between religious and not religious is more like fish and mammals, whereas the difference between Catholic and Protestant is more like dolphins and porpoises.

In other words, if this is about representing different views, rather than just for the sake of diversity, then the purpose of representation is far better served by having a non-religious or atheist justice than by having yet another flavor of Abrahamic religion.

And I still think your interpretation from earlier on the extreme viewpoints a person can have regarding the constitution is wrong.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Kagan is at most culturally Jewish. It's pretty clear she has little or no religious affiliation in her daily life, nor is there any particular evidence that it affects her rulings or legal process.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
How could there be?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
It doesn't matter. It's still going to reliably disturb Ron Lambert profoundly because he ideally wants a (protestant) Christian court ruling as though this were a Christian nation.

IN OTHER NEWS remember when I said this:

quote:
There is utterly no guarantee that the Republicans would be unable to clutter this through procedural motion, symbolic protest, etc. — since it is tactically advisable for them to do so in most expected outcomes, it is likely but not assured.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/top-strategist-advises-gop-to-prolong-scotus-fight-to-block-obama-agenda.php

quote:
Liberals have been warning President Obama for weeks that Republicans and conservative activists would fight and seek to delay confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee no matter whom he picked. Turns out they were right.

In an April 22 conference call with RNC members, which was recorded and passed my way by a source, activist Curt Levey, director of the conservative Committee for Justice, offered Republican operatives candid strategic advice, pressing them to put up a fight against even the most moderate of judges, and providing a glimpse of the GOP's playbook for obstructing Obama nominees.

The crux of the GOP's strategy is to use Obama's nominee to wedge vulnerable Democratic senators away from the party, and drag the confirmation fight out until the August congressional recess, to eat up precious time Democrats need to round out their agenda.

Read it.

Read the whole article.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
How could there be?

Well, I'd expert her to be more conservative on certain issues if there were.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
My point was, there is no judicial record from which to draw evidence. The biggest thing from which we generally draw conclusions about a candidate's stance on issues, and beliefs in legal theory, does not exist in this case.

I'm not saying that's a deal-breaker. It certainly isn't for me at least. And it also doesn't mean that we can't draw evidence from other sources, but not nearly the same kind of evidence. As a federal judge, her decisions would have been protected by a life-time appointment. In her various jobs, most of which were highly politically charged, and in some of which, like as the Solicitor General, she was not representing her own views, but those of someone else. Therefore, I don't think they have the same impact as a judicial record would.

As a disclaimer, I don't care if she's Jewish or not. I'm also not making any assumptions or arguments that suggest her beliefs affect her decision-making process.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
doh
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm also not making any assumptions or arguments that suggest her beliefs affect her decision-making process.

My point is that there's no evidence that her beliefs have anything to do with being Jewish.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Rivka, don't you think that a person's religion, religious upbringing, and religious culture, must have something to do with what they believe?

In the quote from Diane Butler Bass, she points out some of the basic worldview elements that characterize a Protestant upbringing--things that directly impact our whole attitude toward the rule of Constitutional law. The framers of the Constitution were Protestants.

As for Kagan being likely to be conservative because of her Jewish origins--that would seem like it ought to be true, and yet why are so many people with Jewish origins among the most extreme liberals on the political scene? Why do so many Jewish people vote for Democrats, when Republicans are far closer to their ideological positions?

I mean, really, if Jewish people want to see the nation of Israel die, then keep voting for Democrats like Obama!

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
There is little evidence that the home Kagan was raised in was Jewish in any way but culturally.

I have no interest in trying to explain to you -- yet again -- why your assumptions about Jews are wrong.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
... extreme liberals on the political scene?

[Roll Eyes]
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder how the constitution might have been improved with some Catholics and Jews in the mix. And defining the framers as Protestant is not entirely truthful without a lot of explaining.

I do not quite understand the inclination to treat the framers as either apostles or prophets.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Rivka, don't you think that a person's religion, religious upbringing, and religious culture, must have something to do with what they believe?

In the quote from Diane Butler Bass, she points out some of the basic worldview elements that characterize a Protestant upbringing--things that directly impact our whole attitude toward the rule of Constitutional law. The framers of the Constitution were Protestants.

As for Kagan being likely to be conservative because of her Jewish origins--that would seem like it ought to be true, and yet why are so many people with Jewish origins among the most extreme liberals on the political scene? Why do so many Jewish people vote for Democrats, when Republicans are far closer to their ideological positions?

I mean, really, if Jewish people want to see the nation of Israel die, then keep voting for Democrats like Obama!

What the eff is wrong with you!?

First of all Israel is perfectly capable of taking care of itself, even if the US refused to sell it weapons China always could step up they don't care who they sell to.

Secondly the Israeli lobby is the biggest US lobby neither Republicans or Democrats will do anything to ruin Israel's ability to defend itself, Dems have Rahm Israel Emmanual!!!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Here is another angle that was not immediately apparent. If Kagan is approved as Supreme Court Justice, then there will be no Protestants on the Supreme Court. Kagan is Jewish, as is Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The other five justices are Roman Catholic.

Diana Butler Bass, a liberal Protestant, said in lamenting Kagan's nomination:
quote:
I'm not lamenting the loss of representation; I don't think that Supreme Court picks should be ruled by affirmative action. Rather, the primary qualification should be that the person knows the law, understands the law, upholds the law, and possesses a certain sort of empathy for the way that the law impacts the lives of Americans. Accordingly, anyone--a Protestant, Jew, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist--can be an excellent Supreme Court justice.

However, the faith in which one was raised or which one practices forms the basis of one's worldview--the way in which a person interprets contexts and circumstances. It involves nuances regarding theology, outlook, moral choice, ethics, devotion, and community. All religious traditions provide these outlooks to their adherents, and they are present in both overt and subtle ways through our lives. I'm not lamenting the numerical absence of Protestants. Instead, I will miss the fact that there will be no one with Protestant sensibilities on the court, no one who understands the nuances of one of America's oldest and most traditional religions--and the religion that deeply shaped American culture and law.

. . . .

First, Protestants hold central the idea that nothing should or can impede individual conscience. From Martin Luther's clarion call at the time of the Reformation, "Here I stand, I can do no other," Protestants of all sorts emphasize the free expression of individual rights and conscience. Those individual rights can--and do--empower liberation and freedom against corrupt institutions and unjust states.

Second, Protestants believe that symbols like the cross and the flag mean something. Going back to the days when Protestants stripped churches of religious statues and painted over icons, they believed that symbols convey the meaning of the thing depicted. Crosses, icons, flags, paintings, and other representations cannot be separated from their theological or political intention. Thus, Protestants have historically fought over the power of symbols and their meaning in public space. As a result, they often argue for empty public space because they understand the internal power of symbols.

Third, Protestants (in partnership with free-thinking Enlightenment philosophers) created the concept of the separation of church and state in the 17th and 18th centuries. Indeed, some historians argue that the Constitution's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses--the phrases that guide the relationship between religion and politics--might well be the most important contributions of American Protestantism to Christian theology.

Link: http://blog.beliefnet.com/christianityfortherestofus/2010/05/elena-kagan-the-supreme-court-and-a-lament-for-american-protestantism.html
1. Doesn't sound like a concept Protestants invented that no religion could get anywhere else, sorry.
2. If they are so against symbols in public spaces, how come protestants keep wanting to put the ten commandments in state buildings in the South? Makes no sense.....
3. Separation of Church and State was first practiced (yes, by Protestants) in Rhode Island. Roger Williams founded Rhode Island because of intolerance from other Protestants. Rhode Island is also home to the oldest Synagogue in the country, and is also the state with the largest percentage of people belonging to any one religious denomination (Catholicism).

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Rhode Island is also . . . the state with the largest percentage of people belonging to any one religious denomination (Catholicism).
No, that dubious honor goes to the state of Utah (LDS).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, maybe I was wrong.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Rhode Island is also . . . the state with the largest percentage of people belonging to any one religious denomination (Catholicism).
No, that dubious honor goes to the state of Utah (LDS).
I read it was RI on wikipedia some months back; someone has edited the number drastically (I checked the history it was sometime since March 2010), and you will now find estimates anywhere from 49% to 61% on the web from general googling (Catholic sites rate it higher. Go figure). A much smaller percentage of Rhode Island Catholics are regular churchgoers compared to Utah Mormans. Wikipedia gives a rather large range for Utah as well. In any case, neither page is boasting the fun fact that there is a larger proportion of Catholics in RI than Mormans in Utah anymore.

This site has a results from a recent poll that reflect what you say, so I guess you win.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122075/Religious-Identity-States-Differ-Widely.aspx


Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post 
If you want to expand your range beyond the U.S., iirc the state with the highest percentage of people belonging to one denomination is actually Nagaland (90% Baptist).

</trivia>

Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey I'm making you guys read something.

quote:
Gail Collins:As you noted, Kagan posed in judicial robes for her high school yearbook. It is extremely depressing to think that she’s been positioning herself for this job since puberty, self-censoring her way through life.

However, given the way the confirmation process goes these days, I can’t say it’s a bad strategy. Parents who hope their children may one day sit on the Supreme Court really should think about sending the kids off as soon as they’re weaned — to someplace where they can’t get in trouble or set up a Facebook account. I hear the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard is nice.

David Brooks: Gail, I guess my view is that this is what happens to good people when they get caught in a system based on false ideas: make one moral mistake, render one stupid decision or write one controversial essay, and you’ll be disqualified from high office. If they do any of these things then the interest groups on the other side go crazy, we in the press go into a tizzy and the nominee has to step down because he or she has become a “distraction” to the president.

This is a standard that none of us would apply to ourselves and none of us would apply to spouses, friends or family members. We all spend our lives with flawed human beings but somehow expect our court nominees to be without impairment. The result is you get a set of incentives that impairs the careers of brilliant but flawed or prolific people. It rewards the careers of bland mediocrities. In the case of Elena Kagan, it gives a brilliant and gifted person a strong incentive to be reticent and cagey.

Gail Collins: The process of picking a Supreme Court justice has become a joke. Everybody knows that the Judiciary Committee hearings on Kagan will consist of senators asking for her opinion on all the hot button issues of the day, and Kagan responding that she could not in good conscience prejudge a case that might someday come before her. And then she will add something flattering about the Constitution.

Can you imagine what would happen if Justice Swing-Vote Kennedy decided to leave? Or one of the four conservatives? It just wouldn’t get done. Even if they brought back that baby from Svalbard, now grown up into a fine man/woman who graduated top of the class at Harvard Law via extension courses and spent the intervening quarter of a century translating all the major legal tomes in American jurisprudence into Norwegian. With a sideline of rescuing puppies.

David Brooks: I’m not sure I agree that limiting terms to 12 years would reduce the brouhaha. People fight viciously over a four-year presidential term or a two-year House term. In a country where people pass trillions of debt off into the future I’m not convinced anybody is really thinking long term.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/our-crazy-supreme-court-nomination-process/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
If you want to expand your range beyond the U.S., iirc the state with the highest percentage of people belonging to one denomination is actually Nagaland (90% Baptist).

</trivia>

Isn't the population of Vatican City 100% Catholic?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't. I think a quarter of the citizenry of the Holy See is non-clergy. People like the Swiss Guards (who have dual citizenship). Granted, with a population of under a thousand, and with three quarters of that as automatically Roman Catholic based on their status as clergy, the percentage is still going to be extremely high, but it would only take like two or three people to bring it down a percent or two.

However, I'm not sure if it's really fair, per se, to use a state created solely as a political entity representing a religion is really fair. Plus, the Holy See is a nation state, rather than a regional state like Utah or Nagaland would be.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
If there is any question about whether or not Elena Kagan considers herself to be a liberal, it would do well to read her signed guest editorial in the November 10, 1980, issue of The Daily Princetonian (this was just after the Reagan-Conservative Republican landslide victory). Here is an excerpt:
quote:
Looking back on last Tuesday, I can see that our gut response — our emotion-packed conclusion that the world had gone mad, that liberalism was dead and that there was no longer any place for the ideals we held or the beliefs we espoused — was a false one. In my more rational moments, I can now argue that the next few years will be marked by American disillusionment with conservative programs and solutions, and that a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore.
Link to the whole article: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/05/03/26082/
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure if an article written 30 years ago can be used as rigorous evidence for what someone currently believes or even, for that matter, what liberal or conservative currently means to that person.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Armoth
Member
Member # 4752

 - posted      Profile for Armoth   Email Armoth         Edit/Delete Post 
Sounds like a whole lot of whining. From the bajillions of Supreme Court cases I've read, it seems like the court finds a way to function despite its members' Svalbardic citizenship.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't. I think a quarter of the citizenry of the Holy See is non-clergy.

In order to become a citizen of the Vatican, one must be Catholic, therefore, all citizens are Catholics. I think you can *work* at the Vatican without being one- well over two thirds of the people working there do not have citizenship, or live there. You can also live and work there without citizenship, and you cannot inherit citizenship outside the city. Virtually all actual citizens are clergy, state officials, or guards, all of whom are required to be Catholic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I wasn't aware of that requirement. You can work there without being a citizen. Most of the people who run the gift shops and such are Italian citizens.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
I'm not sure if an article written 30 years ago can be used as rigorous evidence for what someone currently believes or even, for that matter, what liberal or conservative currently means to that person.

But it has the word LIBERAL in it!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2