Sharia Justices in the Supreme Court

FILE - In this Oct. 10, 2017, file photo, the Supreme Court in Washington is seen at sunset. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

A trick question: What is the difference between how Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch approach precedent as opposed to justices in Islamic Sharia courts? The answer: None.

The so-called “conservative” justices are all, to one degree or another, self-declared “originalists.” They subscribe to the theory that law must be interpreted according to the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers.

Originalists believe they can divine (pun intended) the intent of the Framers, the 55 delegates to the 1787 …

To Read this Article Login or Subscribe

Login Subscribe

4 Comments

  1. Honestly, this is a real twisted piece of logic to equate within the same construct: American constitutional principals, Orthodox theology and Muslim Sharia Law.

  2. Boy, this piece is a stretch. Even constitutional scholars who are originalists do not throw out principles of stare decisis, but may show how earlier decisions are flawed because lower courts overstep the boundaries of their power by “making new law.” For example, the recognition of single sex marriages cannot be found as original powers in the Constitution, and according to Amb. Theros’ logic, would have been overturned. But, marriage is a states rights matter, and the Court (conservative majority) upheld states rights to make their own laws. This piece shows an anti-conservative bias and is written to fit a script. But the logic behind it is flawed. Badly flawed.

    The Constitution is the basis of government’s power. I am glad that that baseline is recognized as important so that courts don’t overstep their power and “make” laws that Theros would prefer over what is legally correct.

  3. The only Church with apostolic succession is the Orthodox Church. Once a bishop strays from the truth apostolic succession is lost.

Comments are closed.