tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post7576404114082045320..comments2023-10-11T09:41:19.089+02:00Comments on Philosophical Comment: When is a Person's Religion A Personal Matter and When is it Not?Christian Munthehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03373442927438898939noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-33025118456008672182013-11-04T04:01:05.496+01:002013-11-04T04:01:05.496+01:00Great Information, thanksGreat Information, thankssalamahhttp://ebooksbusinesspdf.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-10122335905660021862013-09-26T22:08:24.096+02:002013-09-26T22:08:24.096+02:00It was the pursuit of happiness part I had in mind...It was the pursuit of happiness part I had in mind, but the part you cite is relevant as well. I can't say we disagree in any marked way here, it is indeed a grey area and my view is that in a democracy, in the end, it will be voters and elected representatives that decide whether or not to press for answers.Christian Munthehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03373442927438898939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-47502893182756158472013-09-26T21:41:37.008+02:002013-09-26T21:41:37.008+02:00Hmm, I'm not sure which reference to "man...Hmm, I'm not sure which reference to "man" you are thinking of-- perhaps the idea that all men are created free and equal (from the Declaration)? In any case, even if he did interpret "man" differently from how previous judges had intepreted it, he would be bound, at this point, by prior interpretations (i.e. stare decisus). I'm not saying that one's views on political matters are completely irrelevant to judicial interpretation, it's just that there are a ton of reasons why there cannot be a simple or straightforward relationship between the two.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04870996213861528662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-37907529448053065832013-09-21T15:57:26.945+02:002013-09-21T15:57:26.945+02:00Thanks, Rob - an apt comment! I think that the pro...Thanks, Rob - an apt comment! I think that the problem for Svantesson here is not only the nature of her office, but her role as representing a party with a certain ideological profile. Had she belonged to the Christian Democratic party, which is part of the coalition led by Moderaterna, the relevance of having her declare her opinions would possibly have been less urgent. But in the end, it is of course the voters and party members who are to decide what's relevant and not. <br /><br />In relation to your example about Roberts, I'm not entirely sure I agree, although it is gray area case. One's view on abortion in the US political context is intimately tied to how one interprets certain central concepts in the federal constitution, such as "man". The Roe v. Wade decision implies that fetuses are not (constitutionally) "men", but that could be changed if enough judges serving on the SC made a new reading.... Hence, I find that particular topic to be highly relevant for assessing his fitness as judge on the SC.Christian Munthehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03373442927438898939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-65622567903267640722013-09-21T15:20:12.395+02:002013-09-21T15:20:12.395+02:00I have to agree with what I take to be your main p...I have to agree with what I take to be your main point, that there is no such thing as a "private opinion" on public matters. Someone running for office needs to tell us where they stand on different legislative matters.<br /><br />However, you didn't say what cabinet position she has been appointed to (and even if you did, I wouldn't necessarily know exactly what that would mean in Sweden). Isn't it relevant whether she has legislative capacities or not? I mean, if we don't usually care about the personal opinions of, say, the secretary of defense about abortion or gay marriage, then it raises a lot of questions if we suddenly care when we perceive an appointee to have unusual or well-defined positions in these debates. It raises the question whether we are on a witch hunt.<br /><br /> There was a similar debate in the States when John Roberts was appointed to the Supreme Court. A lot of people wanted to know whether he was "pro-life" or not. This was not, however, strictly relevant to the position to which he had been appointed, whose main responsibility is to uphold the constitution. In fact, federal judges are strictly prohibited from visibly campaigning for pet political projects. And they also aren't supposed to judge cases on the basis of their personal opinions, but rather on the basis of judicial precedent, etc. If people had asked Roberts about his personal views, I think he would rightly have refused to answer: the relevant questions are those that pertain to how he will perform the duties in the position for which he is running.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04870996213861528662noreply@blogger.com