Does Supreme Court

[Roro1972]

Curious to see ( in this case hear ) what you think.
There is a case coming before the
Supreme Court soon.
I believe this case is about morals.
So here is my question
Do you think the Supreme Court has the Constitutional right to legally lower the morals we have always lived by?

 

[Cturtle]

Curious to see ( in this case hear ) what you think.
There is a case coming before the
Supreme Court soon.
I believe this case is about morals.
So here is my question
Do you think the Supreme Court has the Constitutional right to legally lower the morals we have always lived by?

To me that is the biggest reason why so much of our country is in such a mess. Less and less young people have been taught good morals. If it we not for the church and some good people our youngsters would have no morals. Yikes!! How much further can they take them down?

 

[reba]

The Judicial Oath

The origin of the second oath is found in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which reads "the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices" to take a second oath or affirmation. From 1789 to 1990, the original text used for this oath (1 Stat. 76 § 8) was:



"I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."



In December 1990, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 replaced the phrase "according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution" with "under the Constitution." The revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads:



"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."


The Combined Oath

Upon occasion, appointees to the Supreme Court have taken a combined version of the two oaths, which reads:



"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

They are not set to rewrite the Constitution ... even if they think so

 

[Lewis]

If I remember right it was 1882 when the high court said that this was a Christian nation, but they don't go by that now.

 

[Roro1972]

To me that is the biggest reason why so much of our country is in such a mess. Less and less young people have been taught good morals. If it we not for the church and some good people our youngsters would have no morals. Yikes!! How much further can they take them down?

I think it started in early 60's removing important things from schools.

 

[Roro1972]

The Judicial Oath

The origin of the second oath is found in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which reads "the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices" to take a second oath or affirmation. From 1789 to 1990, the original text used for this oath (1 Stat. 76 § 8) was:



"I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."



In December 1990, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 replaced the phrase "according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution" with "under the Constitution." The revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads:



"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."


The Combined Oath

Upon occasion, appointees to the Supreme Court have taken a combined version of the two oaths, which reads:



"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

They are not set to rewrite the Constitution ... even if they think so

I didn't know of the two.

 

[Roro1972]

If I remember right it was 1882 when the high court said that this was a Christian nation, but they don't go by that now.

Sad but you are right.