Recently in Supreme Court Category

Court fight waged over brain-damaged mom's triplets

By MV03 on April 29, 2010 11:22 AM | 2 Comments | 0 TrackBacks

This article is about a mother that gave birth to triplets. During the difficult birth she experienced severe brain damage that has caused her not to be able to raise them. She last seen her children in October of 2007 when they were toddlers, they will turn 4 on June 20th. I dont think that there is a question about if she is able to see her kids. Even if she is not able to fully interact with them. They are her kids and this unfortunate event should not keep her from seeing them. The family of the mother are fighting for her to be able to see her children. The family says she communicates through blinking. Blinking once means yes and not blinking means no. The family filed divorce papers on her behalf, and the husbands says that it is not in the childrens best interest to see their mother. I dont understand this at all... Why would it not be in the best interest for them, no matter what she is their mother! It dont make sense to me how people can be so greedy and selfish sometimes. The court proceding is scheduled for May 13, no matter the outcome, it is evident that this case will serve as a precedent for similiar cases in the future.

 http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/22/california.triplets.visitation.lawsuits/index.html

 

MY Jesus is better than YOUR Jesus...

By JohnL on April 7, 2010 9:45 AM | 0 Comments | 0 TrackBacks
"When Justice Stevens retires, it is entirely possible that there will be no Protestant justices on the Court, for the first time ever."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125641988

[chart]

     For the first time ever, there may not be a protestant judge?  Goodness NOOOOOOOOO!  Is there really that big of a difference between Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical Free, etc?  Jesus died on the cross for your sins, accept him into your heart, and eternal life shall be yours.  And....done.  From my experience, this pretty much sums up the heart and soul of the message found within the doctrines of these various denominations. 
    
     Though America has yet to face this issue until now, what is the significance of this?  Where is the psychology in this?  If you read the article, you will see how nearly every person quoted, and each expert opinion given determines that a potential supreme court judiciary candidate's religious affiliation should not affect the decision of their appointment. 

     Yet it remains a talking point.  Why?  Because religious views influence our methods of decision making.  Short of finding food, shelter, water, and procreation, nearly every single human activity is constructed.  Beliefs, morals, ethics, traditions, and perspectives are not prerequisites for basic human needs. 

     With that said, it would seem that religion is fundamentally important in this situation, as it must influence interpretations of the Constitution, yes?  While I would like to think that appointed leaders (for whom the common citizen is NOT allowed to vote for) can "turn off" their religious switch, social psychological research has demonstrated time after time how attitudes, beliefs, and life experiences influence behavior, whether conscious or unconscious. 

     With THAT said, what's with the homogeneous religious affiliation of current Supreme Court Justices?  If there is anything the natural laws that govern the planet have taught us its that in diversity there is security.  Wouldn't increasing  racial, cultural, ethnic, gender, and religious diversity on the Supreme Court demonstrate our leaders' progressive ideals? 

     I look forward to the day when it is not uncommon to find Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Shinto men and women working together to make decisions that affect all Americans...
« Sentencing | Main Index | Archives

Categories

Monthly Archives