State and Church
OK, Harriet Meirs has hustled down the hall and it was not the hue and cry of the liberals that carried her to the exit. It was actually the Right. They didn't trust her credentials (ahem.. what credentials??) It's hard to judge a good judge if they had never judged before. Her stand on abortion was unknown and they had to object. Cronieism is overruled! There is hope for a new day yet!
As happy as I am to see her go, I worry about the next dog and pony show. What lies ahead.. a third year law student who is a son of some good ol boy in Texas?
I worry about a nation that is no longer differentiated between church and state. We are contemplating legislation to make it a national crime to have same gender marriage. Should not a legal union between 2 people be a legal declaration of combined properties and in this light.. anybody should be able to legally declare their funds combined and the union legal and solvent? This type of declared state should be able to purchase insurance, care for dependents and be eligible for applicable tax breaks. Notice, please, that we have yet to speak about religion, nor should we have to, because religion has no place in a definition of legal partnership.
Abortion, granted, is more involved in the issue of morality. Issues of viability, life verses potential life and a woman's right to choose the path of her life and that of a child all tie into the drama of Roe vs Wade. My best advice to any future Supreme Court judge is to NOT confuse the Bible with the Constitution of the United States of America. The legislation of the nation is guided by the constitution. To seek to overturn rulings of the Judicial arm of our country by referring to Biblical law as a guide is misguided. This country was founded on religious tolerance and freedom. This freedom is best safeguarded by the separation of church and state that we built our government upon. If we compromise this strategy with Bible-minded candidates for the Supreme Court, we compromise the foundation of the judicial branch of our country.
As happy as I am to see her go, I worry about the next dog and pony show. What lies ahead.. a third year law student who is a son of some good ol boy in Texas?
I worry about a nation that is no longer differentiated between church and state. We are contemplating legislation to make it a national crime to have same gender marriage. Should not a legal union between 2 people be a legal declaration of combined properties and in this light.. anybody should be able to legally declare their funds combined and the union legal and solvent? This type of declared state should be able to purchase insurance, care for dependents and be eligible for applicable tax breaks. Notice, please, that we have yet to speak about religion, nor should we have to, because religion has no place in a definition of legal partnership.
Abortion, granted, is more involved in the issue of morality. Issues of viability, life verses potential life and a woman's right to choose the path of her life and that of a child all tie into the drama of Roe vs Wade. My best advice to any future Supreme Court judge is to NOT confuse the Bible with the Constitution of the United States of America. The legislation of the nation is guided by the constitution. To seek to overturn rulings of the Judicial arm of our country by referring to Biblical law as a guide is misguided. This country was founded on religious tolerance and freedom. This freedom is best safeguarded by the separation of church and state that we built our government upon. If we compromise this strategy with Bible-minded candidates for the Supreme Court, we compromise the foundation of the judicial branch of our country.
posted by suzie at 4:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home