Since seven out of nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans.?

Question

Why has there not been more rulings in favor of religion concerning the free establishment clause of the 14th Amendment?

Also if you do not know what you are talking about please do not respond to this question.

They are not bound by any existing law. They interpert the law. Look at how many times the death penalty has been reversed and reinstated again.

The majority are conservative and on the religious right. Look how easily this court could over turn Roe v. Wade. I never stated that they were all religious.

I agree with you on that time period but Sandra Day O'Connor is no longer on the Supreme Court.

Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe 2000

Good News er al Club v. Milford Central School 2001

McCreary County v. ACLU, Van Orden v. Perry 2004-05

Some judges and commentators who were critical of the endorsement test complained that, taken to its logical conclusion, it woild exclude any reference to God from public discourse. That is how they defend their preference for the more permissive coercion test.

I agree with you Henry, but one word ideology.

dsl67- While I agree that it does deal with the 1st Amendment it does in some ways deal with the 14th as well.

You can take a Bible into school. Once again things of this nature tend to flip-flop case by case. Some cases accommodate religion and some separate. You need to look at the three prongs of Jefferson's 1803 letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in the capital Lemon test.

Answer 1

They have to consider past rulings for some reason despite how insane past rulings have been. FDR destroyed the Supreme Court with his activist appointments.

I know Sandra Day Oconnor was appointed because Reagan said he would appoint the first woman and pickings were pretty slim since he pretty much had to choose from federal judges that Carter had appointed to get someone with experience.

Answer 2

Stitch,

While this is an interesting question, I think you have your amendments wrong. The 14th Amendment does not deal with religion at all. Instead it mainly deals with the rights of citizenship, equal protection under the law and due process. It also dealt with changes in the apportionment of representation and the qualifications for holding office.

The first amendment guaranteed that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free excersize thereof. In the past fifty years of so, the understanding of this amendment has been perverted in both the courts and in public opinion so that we keep hearing today about the 'separation of church and state.' This so called 'separation' is not in the Constitution nor was it intended to be by the founding fathers.

We see the misapplication of the first amendment extending so far these days as to having school districts prohibiting students from reading a bible in the school. How a student reading a bible in school could possibly be a violation of the first amendment is beyond me, in fact the prohibition by schools would be closer to violating the amendment since it involves a state agency prohibiting the free excersize of religion.

As far as Supreme Court Justices, there really is no way to predict how they will vote once they become justices. Many of them change their voting patterns once they get on the bench, I believe, because the get absorbed with the liberal atmosphere of Washington DC, and do their best to try to fit in.

Answer 3

The problem is who appoints the judges has nothing to do with how those judges are going to vote.
From Wikipedia:
A justice's political leaning, nor the party of a justice's nominator, however are often misleading factors in interpreting a justice's actions, or in predicting future decisions. These can be better explained by studying spectrums describing the justice's interpretation of the constitution (either strict or loosely), and a justice's activity (either active or reserved). The nature of the Supreme Court does not allow for justices to be effectively politically pressured. Once a justice has overcome the nomination and confirmation process, he or she is free from pressure from either side of the political spectrum.
-------------
Well yes and no, ideology only works for non-professional justices who believe in putting their own agendas in their decisions. As the Wikipedia article states, the judges are free from political pressure to bend one way or the other. Thus they are free to pursue their OWN interpretation of the US Constitution. I would bet that lower justices might go one way or another in order to influence the possibility they might be appointed to the Supreme Court, once they are already on the Supreme Court, there is no need to pandering because they can't be removed from office by politicians (if anything legal comes up, that's another story).

Answer 4

Because the justices are bound to rule on existing law.

Answer 5

You have the misconception that all Republicans are pro-religion and that all Judges appointed by them are pro-religion.

Answer 6

I really can't answer without specifics. What decisions are you thinking of?