http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=23&ID=248633&r=0

Religion looms in debate over Miers
Sunday, October 23, 2005
By David G. Savage and Maura Reynolds Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - When the Supreme Court opened its new term this month,
the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. marked a first in the
court's history that went almost entirely unnoted.

For the first time, there are fewer Protestants on the court than
Catholics. Roberts brought the number of Catholics to four. Three of
the justices are Protestant, two Jewish.

It was scarcely noticed at the time because the religious makeup of
the court rarely is discussed, partly due to the constitutional
separation of church and state.

Judges and other federal officials "shall be bound by oath or
affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in
the United States," the authors of the Constitution said in 1787.

But religion suddenly loomed large in the debate over President Bush's
latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, after the White House
cited her faith and her membership in an evangelical Christian church
as reasons for conservatives to support her.

quiet, please

Quickly, the left and right found something they could agree on. Both
sides said that religion should not be the basis for nominating or
confirming a Supreme Court justice.

"We are the last people on earth to object to the news that she is a
committed Christian," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative
Family Research Council. "By the same token, this fact is not grounds
for certifying her to us or to the public. ... Inferences drawn from
an individual's religious affiliation have no place in decisions to
nominate or confirm a judicial appointee."

Sounding the same note, Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the
liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said it
was "appalling and hypocritical" for the White House to promote Miers
because of her church membership.

Most legal scholars reject a focus on a judge's religion because of
what they see as the basic difference between law and politics.

Politicians may highlight their faith when they run for office, and
voters may elect them because of their religion. But judges are
supposed to decide based on the law, not on their personal views or
their religious convictions.

"The issue is (that) law has its own autonomy. A conclusion of law is
not the same as a conclusion based on religious faith," said Edward
Hartnett, a law professor at Seton Law University. "It is quite
possible to believe, for example, that capital punishment should not
be permitted based upon a religious belief, but to uphold it as a
judge on the grounds that it is constitutional."

If judges cannot put aside their personal convictions on a legal
issue, they should withdraw from the case, he said.

It's no gauge

There is plenty of evidence they can. Indeed, religious faith has not
been a particularly good predictor of a justice's legal views.

President Reagan in his second term appointed two Catholics to the
court. Both Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy said they believed
abortion was immoral, and both won a unanimous confirmation from the
Senate.

Yet they were bitterly split when the court in 1992 debated whether to
overturn Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion.

Scalia said the Roe decision was wrong and should be reversed because
the Constitution did not create such a right. Kennedy cast a decisive
fifth vote to uphold the abortion right, saying the Constitution's
protection for individual liberty gave women a right to make this choice.



*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************