Next Justice Should be a Champion of Seperation of Church and State
Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter has been a great champion of separation of church and state. His replacement should be as well.
Much to the dismay of the far right, Souter was never a conservative ideologue. On issues of church-state separation and individual freedom, he angered the Religious Right by refusing to endorse its theocratic vision. In some cases, he provided the pivotal vote that prevented erosion of the church-state wall.
Souter embodies the qualities that make an effective justice – qualities President Barack Obama would do well to look for when considering Souter’s replacement. Like Souter, the next high court justice must have a keen intellect and can’t be afraid to use it. Souter was rarely content to simply endorse another justice’s opinion. He often wrote separately to explain his own thinking.
His replacement should be equally willing to explain his or her legal reasoning. The Supreme Court remains closely divided over issues of church and state. The new justice should be an unabashed supporter of that principle, someone who doesn’t hesitate to spar with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and soundly debunk their ill-informed attacks on the church-state wall.
Our next justice should also understand and appreciate the twin guarantee of freedom embodied in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. He or she should strongly oppose government support for or intervention in religion yet vote to protect individual religious freedom rights.
Obama must do his best to find a justice who honors, respects and reflects the values the New Hampshire jurist championed. It’s imperative that the church-state views of potential nominees be ascertained well in advance. Any who fail to support that principle should be rejected.
Some might argue that this is a “litmus test.” If so, it’s a reasonable one. Isn’t it to be expected that we would require a nominee for the highest court in the land to unashamedly and forthrightly express support for basic constitutional principles? Most Americans would look askance at a nominee who blithely dismissed freedom of speech or the right to a fair trial. They should do the same with a potential justice who disregards the separation of church and state.
Americans United is not interested in naming names at this point. The American legal system is huge. We are confident that within this system, there are many men and women who embody the values espoused by Justice Souter. Obama should make sure he finds one.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
What church and state wall do you refer? You are aware, although maybe not, that no where in the Constitution, is there a mention of the seperation of Church and State? Perhaps you are just being intellectually dishonest? The Constitution forbids the creation of a State sponsored or mandated religion , ie The Church of England. No one portion of the Constitution, other than the 2nd Amendment, is more incorrectly quoted and had it meaning expanded into unbelievable areas. Again the left shows it has no business being in a leadership position when it claims the 1st Amendment directs a seperation of Church and State.
James Madison, the main author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, directly speaks in favor of the *total* separation of church and state . He speaks of the danger of religious intrusion into the affairs of the state. Separation is absolute FACT, as evidenced by Madison's words:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. " (Detached Memoranda)
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)
I'll take the word of an expert any day over a theocracy apologist. And you can't get any more "expert" than the author of our founding documents.
Yes, what you wrote is correct, yet you fail to understand the founders. They were not anti- religion , nor were they anti-God. In fact, they wanted God to be a part of every facet of society . What they did not want, and what you seem to miss, is they did not want a Theocrasy. They did not want a State, IE National, religion. They never envisioned the complete removal of God or religion from any segment of society, least of all, government. The founders were most all religious men and worshipped God reverently. What has happened today, due to liberals, is the complete removal of any overt "religiousness" from all aspects of public life in society. The founders are rolling over in their graves in shame and embarrassment at what a cesspool our society has become. One of my favorite quotes is "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." And really, theocracy apologist? Please.
People claiming that religion wasn't a big thing really underestimate the power of spirituality. It can literally control nations. Morals are a great thing and people are generally good natured. But religion turns ugly when words get twisted, or are planted in the historical text to condemn a heretical event. Yes, Christianity is in our past. So is atheism. So is paganism. The latter two have grown over the years. We have moved away from the one religion ruling over all. Society evolved for the better thanks to one simple thing -- freedom of religion. You can not have freedom of religion without one other thing -- a government free of direct religious direction. While I don't agree we need to dismantle anything historical, we shouldn't be aggressively promoting the Bible, the Commandments, or the hate mongering anti-gay nonsense that leads to violence. Keep that stuff between family and friends where it belongs. We don't need a Salem, Massachusetts known for a homosexual massacre. We don't need a violent extremist group aimed at killing gays, lesbians, or transgenders. We're better off without that reality. Remember, spirituality is powerful. Mix it with violence and you've got yourself a problem.