[Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?

[bear at moscow.com]

Just a thought, but since we have had "non-activist" judges that gave us
decisions like Bush v. Gore, maybe we should have openly activist judges!
It's the ones in the closet that have caused all the problems!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Joe
> I have no major disagreement with your statement. But as a judge it is
> your place to uphold the law not write it, irrespective of your personal
> view.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:47:06 -0700
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?
>
>> If you are in favor of laws, like anti-abortion laws, which restrict
>> the choices of others AND your beliefs about the issue are based on
>> your own personal religious views, then you are in favor of
>> restricting the actions of others who have different religious views
>> than your own. Sorry but that is anti-freedom, pure and simple.
>>
>> That was my point.
>>
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:29 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Joe
>> > I don't know what you are implying here. I am quite willing to
>> > except everyone's religion. I don't care whether they are Catholic,
>> > Methodist, Moslem, Hindu, you name it or Atheist. As long as they
>> > don't force their belief's on other or kill people, what ever they
>> > believe is fine with me. On the court though Justice is supposed to
>> > be blind. Justices should not interject ther beliefs into
>> > decisions.They should rule only on the facts, the constitution  and
>> > the law.
>> > Roger
>> > -----Original message-----
>> > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> > Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:19:21 -0700
>> > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth
>> > Catholic?
>> >
>> >> Roger,
>> >>
>> >> You can be pro-life and also pro-choice. The issue is whether or not
>> >> you are truely in favor of freedom of religion and thought and
>> >> practice and are willing to accept that some folks don't share your
>> >> narrow world view. Why not let them decide for themselves.
>> >>
>> >> Joe Campbell
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:44 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I do not think that her views on abortion are well known. If turns
>> >>> out that she is pro-life, I lot of you with the possible exception
>> >>> of Keely will be less enthused with her appointment. It would be
>> >>> ironic if she turned out to be the reverse of Souter on the abortion
>> >>> issue.
>> >>> Roger
>> >>> -----Original message-----
>> >>> From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
>> >>> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:41:37 -0700
>> >>> To: Moscow Vision 2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >>> Subject: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?
>> >>>
>> >>>> Gender, racial or ethnic background may or may not be important in
>> >>>> a choice
>> >>>> for a US Supreme Court justice, but it seems religious background
>> >>>> is not a
>> >>>> major focus in the case of Sotomayor's nomination.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And why is this issue not on the front page?  If she were Muslim,
>> >>>> Hindu or
>> >>>> Atheist, the full force of the religious bias in the US body
>> >>>> politic towards
>> >>>> a challenge to the Christian/Judaism monopoly on US politics
>> >>>> would be
>> >>>> revealed, despite the claim of the religious right that
>> >>>> Christianity is
>> >>>> being marginalized in government.  Religion is a dominant influence
>> >>>> on
>> >>>> ideology that should be open to full critical rational fact based
>> >>>> discussion, as well as gender, racial or ethnic background.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Article on Sotomayor's Catholic background:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/politics/31catholics.html?ref=global-home
>> >>>> -------------------
>> >>>> Why is there not a single US Senator who declares themselves of
>> >>>> another
>> >>>> religious background than Christian or Jewish, of one variety or
>> >>>> another?
>> >>>> There are two US Senators who are "unspecified."  Now there's a
>> >>>> faith for
>> >>>> you!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html#109
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> From website above:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> According to the data, no Senator falls under the category "No
>> >>>> Religion/Atheist/Agnostic" - a category embodied by 15.0% of the
>> >>>> U.S.
>> >>>> population according to the 2001 Census.
>> >>>> -------------------
>> >>>> Religion is the most pervasive form of prejudice against a
>> >>>> political
>> >>>> position (and despite what some might wish otherwise, US Supreme
>> >>>> Court
>> >>>> justice nominations are very political in nature) in US politics,
>> >>>> in the US
>> >>>> Senate or the presidency.  More than gender, race or ethnicity.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No politician running for the US Senate or the presidency would
>> >>>> stand a
>> >>>> chance if they openly declared themselves Atheist.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ted Moffett
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> =======================================================
>> >>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> >>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> >>>              http://www.fsr.net
>> >>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >>> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>