A D.C. Court of Appeals committee that oversees attorney conduct recommended that Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and personal attorney to former president Donald Trump, be disbarred, determining he should not be allowed to practice law in the nation’s capital because of his attempt to block the results in the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania. wapo.st/44ceMIQ
To properly Assess and Evaluate the Decision, both Judicially and Intellectually, it is necessary to select Terms and Statements from the Text. Here is a good place to start;
"...she will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction..."
The SCOTUS decides that her interpretation of "BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE" is a "SINCERELY HELD CONVICTION"
- How do you come to the conclusion that one belief is "SINCERELY HELD, " and another is not?
- Since when is "SINCERITY" of belief a justification for violating Constitutional Law?
For much of U.S. History, Racists and Bigoted Individuals and Groups used their INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE TO ARGUE THAT CERTAIN RACES AND ETHNIC GROUPS WERE EVIL AND INFERIOR, AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO EQUALITY UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. My guess is that they, to this day, have a "SINCERE" BELIEF THAT THEIR INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE WAS THE RIGHT ONE.
So, we are left with the following:
ARE CERTAIN INTERPRETATIONS OF BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPTED AS "SINCERE" AND "TRUE," and do not violate Constitutional Law by the SIX MEMBER MAJORITY WHO RULED ON THIS CASE?
TO BE CONTINUED...
