Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
Related: About this forumGOP Senator Jeff Sessions thinks Supreme Court justices are too secular
Sessions, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, took special aim at U.S. Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, as well as President Barack Obama, suggesting that they are threats to the Constitution. The judges, he said, are untethered in their judicial philosophy from the words and meaning of the Constitution. He attacked Obama for stating that he looks for judges with empathy: Whatever empathy is, its not law.
The senator recalled one quote from Sotomayor that, he said, still makes the hair stand on my neck. He explained: She said there is no objectivity, just a series of perspectives. He suggested that the problem may be that Sotomayer and other judges arent sufficiently religious: If you have secularization in the world and dont believe in a higher being, maybe you dont believe there is any truth.
(In a 2001 speech, Sotomayor approvingly quoted several law professors who said there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives, according to a 2009 article in The New York Times.)
http://www.law.com/sites/articles/2016/07/20/jones-day-panel-on-judiciary-plays-to-republican-crowd/
The senator recalled one quote from Sotomayor that, he said, still makes the hair stand on my neck. He explained: She said there is no objectivity, just a series of perspectives. He suggested that the problem may be that Sotomayer and other judges arent sufficiently religious: If you have secularization in the world and dont believe in a higher being, maybe you dont believe there is any truth.
(In a 2001 speech, Sotomayor approvingly quoted several law professors who said there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives, according to a 2009 article in The New York Times.)
http://www.law.com/sites/articles/2016/07/20/jones-day-panel-on-judiciary-plays-to-republican-crowd/
(And what a weird panel that must have been, where they can report "McGahn, the general counsel to the Trump campaign, gave the most moderate presentation of the three speakers"; the final speaker's "if Hillary Clinton is elected, we will descend into a lawless Hobbesian nightmare that we will not emerge from for at least two decades" is hard to imagine without froth appearing in his mouth)
(via Friendly Atheist, where they point out Sotomayor is Roman Catholic anyway; but she's still too secular for Sessions. I guess that means he's against separation of church and state, and demands Sotomayor makes all her rulings with explicit Catholic reasoning only)
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 675 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GOP Senator Jeff Sessions thinks Supreme Court justices are too secular (Original Post)
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2016
OP
Zambero
(8,974 posts)1. Gimme that old time religion, Supreme Court
And while you're at it, just forget about that pesky First Amendment.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)2. Ah, the good old wordplay: "belief" vs "belief"
"Belief" can mean that you don't know for a fact.
"Belief" can also mean a specific cultural and theological doctrine that one must adhere to.
So what is it?
Does Sessions want the SC to operate on assumptions and hunches?
Or is he unhappy that they don't "believe" what he wants them to "believe"?
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)3. Perhaps he is asking for Sharia Law