6:00 PM Tue, Jul 21, 2009
Wayne Slater/Reporter 

For three days, members of a Senate committee pressed Sonia Sotomayor on her view of the law and how individual experience affects judicial decisions. And for three days, Sotomayor was careful to avoid political blunders that might derail her confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In large part, Sotomayor followed the model of other successful Supreme Court nominees: say as little as possible. Mostly, she expressed deep respect for precedent, for the rule of law and for setting aside personal views in deciding cases.

But is that realistic? Or even wise? Should justices who decide the most fundamental questions of our society actually set aside how their faith has shaped their world view? Clearly, judges must not impose a religious litmus test deciding cases. But do the lessons of a judge's religious tradition have any role in understanding – and deciding — the issues of the day?

Here's the question: How should a particular judge's life experience – including the tenets of religious faith – inform judicial rulings?

via religionblog.dallasnews.com

Nine panelists discuss the question.

My question is this: Is there any way for a person not to be influenced by their faith?

What if ones faith informs one's role as a judge in the following dimensions? Would it not be beneficial for one's faith to make them ….

Fair?

Conscientious?

Thorough?

Impartial?

Respectful of authority (such as precedent and law)?

Honest?

Principled?

Willing to think deeply and consider issues completely?

Compassionate?

Courteous?

All of these issues are dressed in the Bible and are touched on by other faith systems as well. Can any person who has been shaped by their faith in these areas step back from them and derive from from an outside and less compelling source.?

I don't believe the question is "should," but "can."