] "You can be spiritual. You can meditate as long as you
] don't have a book that says something about right and
] wrong," she said. "There seems to have been no time since
] the Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided.
] It's not a shooting war, but it is a war . . . "

This post is making rounds on the blogosphere because this is one of Bush's judicial nominees (Brown) essentially declaring war on secular humanists. However, I'll underline this for a different, and perhaps more challenging reason.

] U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Bridgeport, attended the
] event but declined to discuss the filibuster debate.
]
] After Brown's address, Shays said in an e-mail, "Justice
] Brown made a very thoughtful presentation speaking to the
] fact that morality and spiritual values are a basic part
] of the decision-making process for all of us, including
] judges. I agree with her."

OK, so those who claim that the recent death penality decision was "based on international law" obviously haven't read the decision in question and they are spinning it pretty hard. The reference to international opinion (the U.S. was the last country to abolish the death penality for minors) was provided after the fact. It wasn't the "basis" for the decision. It was provided to place the analysis in context. I.E., BTW this conclusion we've reached here (by other means) is obviously not completely off base as literally everyone else already reached it.

What is at issue, however, is whether justices are tasked with determining objective truths, or whether they are bound to analyse questions only within the framework of the law. Here-in lies a catch -22. If justices are tied directly to the law, then the reference to everyone else's conclusions is irrelevant, as it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It doesn't matter if everyone says its not ok to exterminate jews so long as the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit it. On the other hand, if justices are tasked with finding universal truths then there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to look for them in the Bible. Stoning people to death for adultery? A-OK!

The subtleties of this question are likely to be lost in the political debate, but this appears to cut both ways. One side will ultimately accuse the other side of hypocracy in advocating one form of objective analysis and opposing another.

The reason, in fact, is that this isn't really about how the law ought to work, but how morality ought to work, and the justice system is just a pawn in the game. Neither side can present consistent views with respect to how it ought to work because neither side has an objective interest in the law per say. Get your war on!