Thursday, October 23, 2014

What Is a Proper Litmus Test for Supreme Court Nominees?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.


What Is a Proper Litmus Test for Supreme Court Nominees?





Printer-friendly version
Posted July 29, 2005

John Roberts Jr., President Bush's recent nominee to the US Supreme Court, has been receiving rave reviews from his peers and Washington's lawmakers. Most in the Republican Party hope for his quick confirmation.

But many Democrats, though they don't doubt or question his qualifications, are committed to withholding their support until he answers questions on two key issues: abortion rights and gay marriages.
These issues have become the litmus test for any new appointment to America's highest court. And the possibility that once on the bench Judge Roberts could, as did Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, become a "swing vote" in future cases dealing with abortion has both pro-choice and family planning groups concerned.
Therefore his response to questions on the issues of gay marriage and abortion will be thoroughly scrutinized. As Associated Press Writer Will Lester noted, "Just over half of all Americans—and a solid majority of women—want to know John Roberts' position on abortion before the Senate votes on whether to elevate him to the Supreme Court" (AP release, Friday, July 22, 2005).
Those who have grown up since the end of World War II may not realize how much the moral climate of Western nations has changed in just the past 60 years. Prior to that time no judicial candidate who supported same-sex marriage or aborting the life an unborn child would have stood a chance of sitting as a judge in any high court in the land. Now, any who oppose openly homosexual marriage or abortion will almost certainly not be appointed to any high court in most Western nations.
As in nations today, judges in ancient Israel were an essential part of its leadership. They were chosen and appointed with this instruction, "Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them ... And let them judge the people at all times…." (Exodus:18:21-22).
Judges were to be the standard bearers of moral conduct—fearlessly standing for a level of behavior that respected the rights and lives of all. Their rulings were not to be driven by popularity polls but by an understanding that each judge is accountable to the higher authority of God. "Then he [the Jews' king] set judges in the land ..., city by city, and said to the judges, ‘Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment' " (2 Chronicles:19:5-7).
Ezekiel, a biblical prophet sent from of God, once criticized his own people for not distinguishing that which is holy from that which is profane (Ezekiel:22:26). Is a similar shift in values happening today? One thing is certain, earlier perceptions of right and wrong are changing. What once was seen as evil is now seen as acceptable and good. What once was called good is now looked upon as evil.
Do we fit the description of another of God's prophets: "For My people are foolish, they have not known Me. They are silly children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge" (Jeremiah:4:22).
Historians put much of the blame for the collapse and fall of the ancient Roman Empire on its moral decay. Sexual abuse of children became rampant. Receiving personal satisfaction and gratifying desires for pleasure became the all-consuming purpose for life. As it plunged into decadence, homosexuality, abortion and infanticide became commonplace. A pregnancy or the birth of a baby often came to be looked upon as merely an obstacle to the good life.
Could we be headed for a similar fate as that of the ancient Roman Empire?
Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!
Login/Register to post comments

No comments:

Post a Comment