A Muslim US Supreme Court Justice?

[Mikelus Trento]

With all the discussion about the characteristics of the new US Supreme Court nominee, a female catholic of Puerto Rican lineage, I thought it would be interesting to discuss what your opinions would be if a nominee was a Muslim?

I personally could not support this on 2 levels....first, the Muslim population in the US is around 1% of the population, and therefore they are too small of a minority. If their numbers increased to around 10%, then this arguement would vanish.

Secondly, the teachings of Islam are too far opposed to the laws of the United States, especially as relates to women, that a person with that background could not render decisions in harmony with the US Constitution.

Would YOU be in favor of such a nominee being selected for the US Supreme Court nominee?

PLEASE keep it civil.

[Pengo]

As long as they do the job to the letter of the law, where is the issue?

[Mikelus Trento]

As long as they do the job to the letter of the law, where is the issue?

The issue for many is the Koran and its teachings.

[Richard]

I think a "Muslim US Supreme Court Justice" and a "Muslim US Supreme Court Justice whose ideals are exhibited to conflict with his job" are two different things.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

As long as they do the job to the letter of the law, where is the issue?

The problem is, people want to legislate from the bench, not follow the letter of the law. Because of such, I could not support a Muslim justice anymore than I could support a liberal one. If, however, the justice did his/her job and followed the Constitution instead of whatever they feel is right, then I could support them.

[Wilder]

The problem is, people want to legislate from the bench, not follow the letter of the law. Because of such, I could not support a Muslim justice anymore than I could support a liberal one. If, however, the justice did his/her job and followed the Constitution instead of whatever they feel is right, then I could support them.

I'm stating the obvious here, but the constitution is open to interpretation. I'm not denying that there is a problem of judges who let their ideologies overtake their loyalty to the constitution, but the reality is that all this noise about "activist judges" and the like is far more often then not just a euphemism that people use to condom interpretations that they don't agree with, regardless of how legit it may be in a strict constitutionalist sense. Gay marriage comes to mind. Conservatives flipped out, calling every judge that sided with the homosexuals activists. Thing is though, that is not what happened, if there is no law defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman on the books, what is a judge supposed to do? As politically incorrect as it is to admit it, there is more than one way to interpret the laws, and sometimes it is legitimately difficult do distinguish which is more correct. That is why this branch of government exists, so don't go complaining just because a judge makes a ruling you don't like, it does not make them "bench legislators".

[MaximiIian]

As long as they do the job to the letter of the law, where is the issue?

The issue is that Islam, unlike other religions, has its own entire system of jurisprudence, most likely due to its origins as a culturally Arabic religion ingrained in the Arabic legal and political system.

A religious system of jurisprudence is contradictory with the law of a secular state, and a person holding to it would most likely be influenced by said system. Creating a conflict of interest that limits their effectiveness as a Supreme Court justice.

Of course, I'm assuming here that said hypothetical person is a very devout, practising Muslim, that holds fast to the ideals of the Koran and Islam jurisprudence. One that is a lapsed Muslim, is a more acceptable candidate.

[mrcrusty]

The issue is that Islam, unlike other religions, has its own entire system of jurisprudence, most likely due to its origins as a culturally Arabic religion ingrained in the Arabic legal and political system.

A religious system of jurisprudence is contradictory with the law of a secular state, and a person holding to it would most likely be influenced by said system. Creating a conflict of interest that limits their effectiveness as a Supreme Court justice.

A potential SCJ candidate though has to stand to public scrutiny and a vote through congress.

If a Muslim were to be nominated, due to the anti-Muslim sentiment in America by some people, that particular judge would have to have a long, established and almost impeccable record of fair judgments if he/she were to stand up to public criticism.

So that judge would most likely be a progressive Muslim as opposed to a traditionalist.

edit: Sotomayor's lucky because she gets the female Latina, double minority immunity... not to mention the economic crisis. Also, she's basically just replacing Souter's liberal role on the bench.

[Sher Khan]

The issue is that Islam, unlike other religions, has its own entire system of jurisprudence, most likely due to its origins as a culturally Arabic religion ingrained in the Arabic legal and political system.

So does Catholicism.

A religious system of jurisprudence is contradictory with the law of a secular state, and a person holding to it would most likely be influenced by said system. Creating a conflict of interest that limits their effectiveness as a Supreme Court justice.

Only if said person does not know where one ends and the other begins. Shar'iah law is Islam's Magna Carta to be employed by a government that claims itself as a champion or defender of Islam, an Islamic government, to limit his power by constitution. It is also a body of Canon Law and Common Law that consists of an endless back-and-forth by thousands of scholar busy-bodies over the centuries on what is the best way to live an Islamic life.

However, in a nation where there is no Islamic government, there is no Shari'ah, and Muslims are commanded to be loyal to their government. Furthermore, as Shari'ah deals almost specifically with Muslim affairs, acting as a SCJ and dealing in matters of mostly non-Muslim affairs or ones that involve everybody, Shari'ah has no place.


Finally, only an Imam or learned jurist-scholar would be privvy to enough Shari'ah as to actively bring it up on any issue he is confronted with. Unless this Muslim Justice had an imam sitting right next to him at every court session, the impact of "Shari'ah" influence would be no greater than a MAD activist disliking alcohol, a Jewish Justice ruling on a case concerning pork, or a conservative social-Republican ruling on a moralist issue.

Of course, I'm assuming here that said hypothetical person is a very devout, practising Muslim, that holds fast to the ideals of the Koran and Islam jurisprudence. One that is a lapsed Muslim, is a more acceptable candidate.

This is precluding the idea that a devout, practising Muslim can perform admirably in secular politics.

[Barry Goldwater]

What's with all these 'X as Supreme Court Justice' threads?

Anyway, as long as the guy/lady is competent and able to keep his/her personal beliefs out of the way, why not?

[Pengo]

I mean, if they do the job, as the job requires, whats the issue?

They then go hame and believe whatever they want. They then go to bed, get up, go to work and judge according to US law. Whats the issue?

[Mikelus Trento]

I mean, if they do the job, as the job requires, whats the issue?

They then go hame and believe whatever they want. They then go to bed, get up, go to work and judge according to US law. Whats the issue?

The issue, FOR ME, is that it would be impossible for a Muslim to forget his religeous teachings. And therefore his/her decisions would be reflective of that.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

The issue, FOR ME, is that it would be impossible for a Muslim to forget his religeous teachings. And therefore his/her decisions would be reflective of that.

And what about Christian, Jews, Hindus or any other faiths and creeds ? Are you saying we should only elect Atheists, Agnostics or the generally irreligious ? That's actually a really good idea......

[dogukan]

The issue, FOR ME, is that it would be impossible for a Muslim to forget his religeous teachings. And therefore his/her decisions would be reflective of that.

that is wrong....proof...check out my country. Law and Islam are two different things.

[Mikelus Trento]

that is wrong....proof...check out my country. Law and Islam are two different things.

I'm pretty sure a Muslim holy person would say that any Muslim who forgets his religion takes precidence over everything else is not a true believer, eh?

[dogukan]

I'm pretty sure a Muslim holy person would say that any Muslim who forgets his religion takes precidence over everything else is not a true believer, eh?

Thats now how people act in secular environments. Not to mention, the core laws of Islam are no different than Judaism and Christianity and basically tell the same things.

Law is law, it is studied and memorized by these people....there is no religion involved in this. If the guy is an extremist, it is a different issue. But education generally takes these qualities away from these people. Come to Turkey if you want to see....

[Justice and Mercy]

I mean, if they do the job, as the job requires, whats the issue?

They then go hame and believe whatever they want. They then go to bed, get up, go to work and judge according to US law. Whats the issue?

It's foolish to put someone in a lifetime position in hopes that they'll ignore their own belief system.

[Pengo]

Would all Muslims? What are their teachings and how do they clash with US law?

[Mikelus Trento]

Would all Muslims? What are their teachings and how do they clash with US law?

My impression is that it is harder for a Muslim to seperate his behavior from his religeous teachings than others.

The main issue with the teachings would be as it relates to the rights of women.

[Tuor]

The main issue with the teachings would be as it relates to the rights of women.

Can you please indicate what women's rights are in Muslim belief?