[Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

[Saundra Lund]

Great points, Rose, and I'm afraid I agree with your assessment.  Thank you
for pointing out the obvious even if it's uncomfortable some.

 

It's long past time for SCOTUS to have to adhere to the same code of ethics
federal judges must adhere to.

 

 

Saundra

 

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Rosemary Huskey
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 2:49 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] A fine point, perhaps.

 

Bias, or perhaps I should say, a predisposition, to adopt a certain
philosophical approach to legal issues may be shaped by private values that
we trust and hold dear.  In light of the  Supreme Court decision supporting
the Hobby Lobby owners refusal to provide forms of birth control they claim
to be at odds with their religious beliefs,  I wondered if the court was
persuaded not by legal arguments but by their own religious affiliations.
Were any of the five male justices associated with religious groups that
uphold the doctrine of patriarchy,  i.e., do they attend churches that deny
women ministerial or priesthood roles. Guess what?  Justice Roberts, Justice
Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito are Roman Catholic. 

 

In contrast, when the decision concerning Roe v Wade was announced in 1973
eight of the nine male justices were members of main stream Protestant
churches. There may or may not be a direct correlation between religion
affiliation and legal opinions, but it is my firm belief that unearned
gender privilege nurtured in the cradle, and deferred to in the church
certainly creates an atmosphere that celebrates and bestows unique privilege
for male members.  And, what could possibly more be patriarchal than
controlling women's reproductive choices?

 

Rose Huskey

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140630/9707e948/attachment.html>