No, NOT like a Sharia court. I just think we need to find some way to make sure judicial opinions consider the WHOLE of our law, including the basic foundation upon which it is built. A ruling that “seems” to comport with civil law, but IGNORES the roots of that law, is a bad decision.
It is absolutely astounding to me how freely judges ignore God’s Law and Natural Law, but claim their rulings are valid.
I wasn’t trying to intimate you were supporting a Sharia court. I do think it would be problematic to introduce a Christian court too though, and I’m very pro Christianity.
As for returning to our judicial roots, I think that is a noble cause.
For about the last six months, I’ve been trying to emphasize that our Constitution if implemented in a non-Christian nation, would have a very hard time giving the populace what it was intended to. I think that’s why we’re seeing so many problems in our own nation. As we drift from God, we drift from the glue that holds our nation together.
I think that holds true in criminal courts, and of course at the SCOTUS also.
Your goal is a decent one. In spirit, I’m with you. I’d have to give it more thought to know exactly how we get there though, without causing down sides along with it.
You are wrong, not on principle but on implementation/reasoning. You se there's this thing called precedent *spit*, which ostensibly is to function just as you suggest. The problem is that the cases used for precedent are chosen to fit the conclusion the judge wants.
What we need is Constitutionalism instead of case-law; that is, start with the Constitution and reason [completely] from there w/o appealing to prior decisions.