The Constitution has always permitted eminent domain. The recent decision notwithstanding, many states have constitutional restrictions on eminent domain for private purposes. Whether it's a natural right depends on the gainer or loser. The Indians might feel that our property ownership viewed as a natural right epitomizes disengenuousness. Again, as long as the state has a constitutional provision preventing such chicanery, no harm done.
Similarly, the federal jurusdiction has been extended to people's backyards by the marijuana growers decision, another irreparable injury, this time to federalism.
Well that little issue began in 1941 when that farmer decided to plant what he wanted...and lost in the USSC.
Sure, Bush can appoint a conservative judge or two, and even get them confirmed. But first, this predicament exposes the juducial branch as an extension of the other two, not as an independent purely intellectual law-interpretive body.
But isn't that the nature of that particular branch? It has always been that way.
And, of course, we have a pattern of judges that were perceived conservative at the time of the nomination promptly drifting leftward once on the bench. The chances of either of these three disastrous decisions to be overturned are virtually nil.
Well, I think a few of those under consideration would be better bets than most to hopefully fit into the ranks of Scalia and Thomas. But, yes, nothing is a sure thing. A justice is a tremendously powerful position. How about Bork, even at 78?
Likewise he should be able to explicitly use religion in his reasoning. I don't know if the instructions of the jury are matter of procedural law, so I don't know if personal opinion may be injected in those;
I agree up to this point. Once the judge starts using religious reasoning rather than legal reasoning, you begin a trend toward Sharia law. And if the judge were Catholic and used some reasoning that was based on teachings of the Church but had little to do with secular law, where does that leave us? It is a tremendously slippery slope that is very similar to the reasoning of those who countenance jury nullification. It begins a process of legal chaos, much more than we have today.
Religion is an intrinsic part of what a human being is; it should be an important factor in considering the qualifications of the judge, and it should be his right to exercise his religion or irreligion once he is installed in office.
His oath of office would prevent such exercise as a substitute for or even as an embellishment for his interpretation of the law, and his conduct of legal proceedings. Justice is a difficult thing to achieve, but it must be attempted within the confines of the established secular legal system.
For example, a judge may not attach civil guilt to things his religion considers wrong. A judge violates the separation clause when he hands down sentences for violating the Sabbath. He does not break the separation clause when he himself publicly observes the Sabbath.
As long as we clearly separate those two concepts in that manner, then we are in agreement.
So, the Jews and the Muslim, and of course the Christians, are no longer protected by the First Amendment. The minority religions are protected by the fungible code of political correctness that teaches us to be nice and non-judgemental to one another. This is a weak, and ultimately incorrect principle, and so the protection is illusory. It holds well for the Jews, the pagan, and the atheists. It is breaking down for the Muslim, and it offers no protection to the Catholics or Evangelical Protestants.
I cannot follow this logic. While Breyer's logic leaves a little to be desired, I think I understand the difference they were going after. Religion is clearly an important part of our history and our culture. As such, it has a right to public display. But if a public official is simply trying to use a public forum for putting forth a religious philosophy of any kind, then it is prohibited. I don't feel that my ability to seek out and practice any religion I choose has been diminished in any way, which is the essence of the First Amendment.
One important distinction is between hurting Christianity and hurting the civil society. The article is about the civil society in Europe being on the verge of death, not Christianity. Indeed, the pederast priests did more to hurt Christianity than anty Supreme Court decisions; but it is Supreme Court decisions like these that injure our civil society.
Our discussion has taken a number of interesting turns as we try to understand the current state of a healthy or unhealthy Europe. But just as your argument that Europe is where it is because it has turned against Christianity is without evidence, so too the statement that the USSC decision on the Ten Commandments has hurt society is not replete with evidence. To the contrary, the decision allowing the Ten Commandments in Texas seems to clear many issues of concern to Americans and certainly pops the balloon of that idiot from California that wants all references to God removed from all public property. I'm optimistic, and even more so with a good conservative replacement for O'Connor.
Once the judge starts using religious reasoning rather than legal reasoning, you begin a trend toward Sharia law.
I did not say "rather than". Obviously if the law says A and his religion says not A but B, then the judge should either overrule the law, or change his religion. Beyond that, my point is, and you continue to disagree form every angle, that religion is simply a part of human existence. Secularism is also a religion; so is atheism. You are a pro-life secularist. I am sure you have come across the argument, directed at you, that your pro-life conviction is a religious conviction. Do you not see a fundamental flaw in their argument? Why should a conviction be discredited merely because there is a religion that holds it? Is is not reasonable to say that convictions are upheld by a religion because they are true? Christians and Muslims agree on few things theologically, but the Muslim are our best allies in the fight against legalized abortion. Sharia prohibits abortion. So?
Religion is clearly an important part of our history and our culture. As such, it has a right to public display. But if a public official is simply trying to use a public forum for putting forth a religious philosophy of any kind, then it is prohibited. I don't feel that my ability to seek out and practice any religion I choose has been diminished in any way, which is the essence of the First Amendment.
In the Soviet Union it was readily acknowledged that religion is an important historical component of culture. Icons were on display in museums, etc. Also, people were free to practice at least the religion that was historically significant in Russia, that is Orthodox Christianity. They could buy religious books, go to church, etc. Now, the state would not assist in any way, -- no public land for churches, no state publishing houses would print the Bible. People who were overtly religious would not get positions of trust, such as in management or education. There was a complete separation of church and state. Sounds familiar?
The truth is that religion, again, is with a man just like a nose is with a man. It is both public and private by definition. If you ban it, you ban people's noses.
without evidence
You don't see the evidence because you don't see the nose on the face. You don't think a decision to have a second child versus a second car has anything to do with religion. Wrong, -- it has everything to do with meaning of life (as a secularist would put it), and so is a matter of religion. This is why you see Europe's predicament in random atomistic terms of economics, contraceptive technology, historical experience, etc. You see the effects but you don't see the central organizing principle of these effects.
Similarly you don't see any harm in the banishment of the Ten Commandments from public life (unless as a museum piece). If you don't see a nose, you won't see a hole where the nose has been. Sure, Americans can still buy second (or third) cars, have their alimony argued about in courts, haul their 1.3 children off to daycare, watch leftist drivel on TV and decide between a Caesar salad and a hamburger, without religious monuments. But that is not life with a meaning.
In one Gospel story Christ heals a blind man, and the blind man does not regain his vision instantly. When people ask him if he can see, he says that he sees men that look like trees, except they are walking. Now, nothing in what Christ did has unnecessary details, as things are both literal and metaphorical. Blindness is physical blindness and also spiritual blindness. When the man cured of blindness sees walking trees, that is because men who don't know Christ are trees. This vision ought to be frightening.