Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason
Because under your example, an evangelical Christian is making a decision on secular law. It'd be no different than a Christian appearing as a litigant or a defendant before a Jewish judge or an atheist. Fairness on ruling on the law has nothing to do with the person's religious persuasion. If that judge were asked to make a ruling on the state of the soul of the non-Christian, then there'd be a problem.
I've thought about this, and I'm giving Delay's attorneys some credit here for knowing what the law is on recusals in Texas. You really don't want to shoot that gun unless you know it has some bullets in it; the remaining time in a case when you start out saying the judge can't be fair could be most unpleasant.
|
i have to disagree. whether it's politics or religion that distinguishes the judge from the accused, it is still a judge with one set of beliefs that is in conflict with the beliefs of the person on trial. our laws are secular, so religion shouldn't matter. and last time i checked, our laws aren't political either (by which i mean they aren't pro/anti-democrat or pro/anti-republican).
so if a democratic judge shouldn't reside over delay's trial, then a christian judge shouldn't rule over a non-christians trial, there could be bias!