As part of Posner’s oath office is to support the Constitution of the United States. If Posner sees no value in studying the Constitution, how does he support it in his rulings. His statements disqualify him to be a judge because he is not fulfilling his oath and is in fact, intentionally violating it.
On a recent legal case and Posner’s questionable interest in and use of Jewish law:
“Legal theorists might claim Posner’s diversion into interpreting religious doctrine is harmless, because he didn’t base his ruling on those interpretations. But they would be wrong. Injecting “religious inclinations” and interpretations into a court decision has no basis in law, sets a dangerous precedent, and can have troubling consequences. Will litigants have to take into consideration any such future “inclinations” to receive a fair ruling? What if there is a conflict of interest between a judge’s “religious” and “legal” inclination? Will other judges decide cases based on Posner’s analysis of Jewish law? This is a sliding scale to theocracy, and a fickle one at that — the very system the Establishment Clause was designed to safeguard us from.
Eliyahu Federman has written for Reuters, USA Today, Jerusalem Post and others on the intersection of religion and the First Amendment
Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/209193/judge-posner-overstepped-bounds-in-chabad-drinking/