439
this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
439 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22568 readers
4330 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Eh... this is kind of nothing. Jurists quote religious texts all the time. Judge Ho--the topic of the article--doesn't quote the Bible in a particularly eloquent fashion, but he's far from the first US judge to use a biblical quote to make a point.
And yes, they quote the Quran too--just not as much since not as many of them are familiar with it. Law is a reasoning profession, and people who practice it like finding analogies and drawing distinctions. If they see that a set of facts is like or unlike something from ancient history, they're likely to bring it up. They'll bring up song lyrics, mythology, popular proverbs, ancient legal texts, moral fables--anything with any reasoning or legal thinking in it.
Trump appointees are deserving of criticism for horrible jurisprudence, terrible judgment and insight, and piss-poor qualifications. There are plenty of things to hate about lots of them, but "they quote the Bible sometimes" isn't one.
You say that like the fact that America's long history of religious tyranny isn't a problem. Like yeah I know people in the past have used religion to justify their horrendous and monstrous rulings. Yeah I know the Bible was used to help commit the genocide of the native peoples. Yeah I know the Bible was used to justify slavery. Yeah I know the Bible was used to justify murdering striking workers. Yeah I knew the Bible was used to brutalize and subjugate women. Yeah I know the Bible was used to justify the extermination of the handicapped. Etc.. However, I don't give a fuck about that because the Bible is nonsense written by a bunch of Bronze Age goat fuckers. I don't want it shaping my life in any way whatsoever.
Not what any of this is about, but okay.
That's exactly what this is about.
They quote the Bible in the context of a court ruling implicitly backed by the full force of the judicial branch, unless and until a successful appeal is made.
There is no context in which including religious references in US court decisions is acceptable, and that’s specifically because of the Establishment Clause:
Emphasis mine.
Is there a similar limitation placed on the judiciary?
It’s pretty obvious to anyone with more than a few brain cells that it’s intended to apply broadly to the government in general.
But of course, the “originalists” love selectively interpreting parts of statements to be the the statement in entirety (in the context of the particular issue they’re trying to opine judicially upon). Which directly implies an absurd level of cognitive dissonance, considering how much those very same judges enjoy bitching about “liberal judicial activism”. They’re 100% ok with judicial activism… as long as it’s not liberal.
Just because a thing is common doesn’t make it correct, or even harmless. It just makes it common.
Our legal system is not based on religious belief, and it’s a reflection of poor judgment to quote meaningless and legally-irrelevant texts.
Would you respect a judge that quotes Harry Potter in official documents on a regular basis? It’s unprofessional, and it suggests a poor decision-making process which produces the actual harm.
YES! If the judge used the Harry Potter quotes to advance sound legal reasoning, I'd consider it a potentially clever and humorous way to inject some levity into something that's otherwise likely mundane and dry. Also I guarantee you a judge has quoted those books in opinions, along with every other popular piece of literature.
I'm sorry to remind everybody incensed here, but the professionals in the profession get to decide what is and is not professional, and the legal profession has a long history of quoting material that's non-germane. You can be upset about it if you want, but we're fortunate that judges explain their reasoning at all.
Quoting a book you don't like doesn't make a decision bad. A decision is bad if it's wrong on the law, and as I think everybody in this thread knows, the Bible isn't the law of the land! Quoting non-law in order to bolster a line of reasoning isn't good, bad, harmful, or harmless by itself, because the reasoning is the important thing. The Bible has been used to stand for many bad positions--but if it hadn't been, those positions would still have been bad!
While you lot are pulling out your pitchforks because a judge quoted the Bible for the billionth time in the last 200 years, did any of you even bother to find out what the decisions actually were?
Good points.
Appreciate the reasoned response. It was my thought in reading the article as well too.