Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

Thread: Should Presiding Judges be allowed to preach their Religion in the Courtroom?

  1. Top | #41
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,359
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,859
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    That he’s a government official doesn’t make the message conveyed governmental.
    That is not what the government taught me.
    While enlisted,I can donate or solicit donations for which ever candidate i want.
    I can attend any politician's rally i want.
    If i do any of these things in uniform, it appears as a government endorsement, which is not authorized, and they will hammer me like a shiny nail.

  2. Top | #42
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    That he’s a government official doesn’t make the message conveyed governmental.
    That is not what the government taught me.
    While enlisted,I can donate or solicit donations for which ever candidate i want.
    I can attend any politician's rally i want.
    If i do any of these things in uniform, it appears as a government endorsement, which is not authorized, and they will hammer me like a shiny nail.
    That’s like the wide-spread unwillingness to separate the appearance of impropriety with actual genuine impropriety. What a person does in uniform affects the image of what the uniform represents, but that’s an adopted, learned position or stance. It’s still the factual case that people wearing a uniform or acting in an official capacity can and do occasionally act in discordance to how others prefer they are represented.

    A US Postal Service worker in full dress shooting someone is not with that action representing the US Postal Service.

  3. Top | #43
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,359
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,859
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    That’s like the wide-spread unwillingness to separate the appearance of impropriety with actual genuine impropriety.
    No. To avoid the appearance of, and accusations of, impropriety, the military has actually made 'endorsing a candidate in uniform' an ACTUAL impropriety.

    It is more like how the Commandment is not to seethe a kid in that kid's mother's milk. To avoid the possibility of this sin, the laws of Kosher food prep keep all meat from all dairy.

    Kind of a fail-paranoid step.

  4. Top | #44
    Senior Member Tharmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    788
    Archived
    184
    Total Posts
    972
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Tharmas View Post

    [snip]...The emotions were indeed running very high at the moment, as the victim’s brother had just publicly forgiven Guyger and hugged her in the courtroom, whereupon Guyger completely broke down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Shouldn't be a judge anymore.
    A lawyer I know suggested that the judge will be reprimanded, and the fact that since the incident she has defended her actions in public will only make it worse for her.

    Another person I know, in this case a prison guard, said the judge should be reprimanded for giving permission to the victim’s brother to step down out of the witness box to hug the defendant. Who knows what he might have done? This opens the door to allow future witnesses to physically contact the defendant. Not good.

  5. Top | #45
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    62
    She’s been my best friend since the second grade. I went over and sat with her on the couch. We talked and listened to music and even fell asleep. You came in and caught us (your girlfriend and I) asleep together.

    Nobody was doing anything wrong. But then again, it flies against the expectations culturally instilled in us, so there’s the unwritten rule not to put ourselves in such situations. It’s not a wrong in and of itself but a manufactured wrong based on expectations.

    A cop enjoys a free gift. A gift not as a bribe. Not as an expectation to do otherwise should things be different. But then, it can look bad and expectations are such that the non-wrongs should be avoided, not because they are in fact wrong but questionable.

    When an actual rule is put in place to avoid questionable potentially image affecting circumstances, a violation of that rule is a wrong in and of itself but secondary (or at least substantively different). Why it’s a rule in the first place isn’t to avoid only wrongs but potential wrongs.

    When the judge did what he did, he didn’t commit an actual constitutional wrong. I’m not saying there can not be another source in law that could prop up a secondary rule rendering his actions unacceptable by rule of law, but it’s still not a constitutional issue because what he did is neither akin to forcing someone to partake in communion nor the forbiddance of it—no forced prayer—no mandatory church attendance. There were religious-based overtones but no governmental mandate that anyone adhere to his personal non-governmental ramblings.

  6. Top | #46
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,359
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,859
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    When the judge did what he did, he didn’t commit an actual constitutional wrong.
    I think he did, and should have known he did.
    I’m not saying there can not be another source in law that could prop up a secondary rule rendering his actions unacceptable by rule of law, but it’s still not a constitutional issue because what he did is neither akin to forcing someone to partake in communion nor the forbiddance of it—no forced prayer—no mandatory church attendance.
    interestingly specific list. He did not do x, y, or z, therefore tge alphabet is not involved.

    But he brought hisvreligion into the courtroom, a spevific no-no, whivh mighht give the defendant grounds for an appeal, a claimmof mistrizal. He might claim that the judge judged him against the judge's spiritual beliefs, not strictly by secular law, and tgge judge was not scrupulous to avoid even the possibility of such a conclusion.
    There were religious-based overtones but no governmental mandate that anyone adhere to his personal non-governmental ramblings.
    But can you prove these religious views did not change the outcome of the caee?

  7. Top | #47
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    But he brought hisvreligion into the courtroom, a spevific no-no,
    It’s not a constitutional no-no. There was no constraint to adhere to specific religious practices, nor was there restraint from practicing specific religious practices. A violation of that would be a constitutional no-no. See, whether he should have abstained from his mantra is not a constitutional issue, so even if there is some secondary reason to think it’s a no-no, it’s still not a constitutional one.

  8. Top | #48
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    6,104
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    11,143
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    But he brought hisvreligion into the courtroom, a spevific no-no,
    It’s not a constitutional no-no. There was no constraint to adhere to specific religious practices, nor was there restraint from practicing specific religious practices. A violation of that would be a constitutional no-no. See, whether he should have abstained from his mantra is not a constitutional issue, so even if there is some secondary reason to think it’s a no-no, it’s still not a constitutional one.
    For a public official in the performance of public service, particularly a judge, to show preference for religion and a particular religion is a clear violation of our constitution.

    If said judge goes to church on sunday that's not a violation, but to preach in a courtroom for religion and for a particular religion is unconstitutional.

  9. Top | #49
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    But he brought hisvreligion into the courtroom, a spevific no-no,
    It’s not a constitutional no-no. There was no constraint to adhere to specific religious practices, nor was there restraint from practicing specific religious practices. A violation of that would be a constitutional no-no. See, whether he should have abstained from his mantra is not a constitutional issue, so even if there is some secondary reason to think it’s a no-no, it’s still not a constitutional one.
    For a public official in the performance of public service, particularly a judge, to show preference for religion and a particular religion is a clear violation of our constitution.

    If said judge goes to church on sunday that's not a violation, but to preach in a courtroom for religion and for a particular religion is unconstitutional.
    But there’s nothing in the constitution that would have us think that. It would take a whopsided interpretation of the constitution to believe that. It’s wishful thinking.

    There was not some objective to separate every aspect of church from that of the state.

    We had already established ourselves as a Christian nation, but it was not to be favored in law. We had freedom, and we wanted it to remain that way. We wanted to keep what we had and to impart some wisdom in place to keep us from devolving the way of what we’ve escaped.

    There was no desire to take prayer out of school. Things today are so muddled from original intentions it ain’t funny. It was a free will issue. Let the people do as they please and let neither the church nor the state dictate the other. If a judge wants to speak his mind for four damn minutes, sorry for your luck that it’s because you’ve committed a crime and can’t escape the preaching tirade. People can do as they please, and that includes a judge telling off a convict, and if the telling off is Bible-based, it takes disdain for religion and a hyper-liberal interpretation of our constitution to think that was meant to be separated apart.

  10. Top | #50
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,077
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,921
    Rep Power
    58
    If the judge felt it necessary to give a Bible to a defendant, she could have done so after-hours, dressed in plain clothes, while affirming that she's not acting in her capacity as a member of the court, but as a concerned private citizen.

    If a Muslim judge stepped down from her seat and handed the police office a copy of the Koran with the words, "I strongly urge you to read this," the folks at Fox News would have aneurysms.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •