No, not that there were inquisition tribunal judges, just that there were Spanish court judges at the time of the Spanish Inquisition.
Some admitted terrorist operatives? My understanding, based on the original article, was that the alleged terrorists he represented were acquitted. Even if they might have actually been guilty in spite of their acquittal, they are due adequate representation. Is there anything from his conduct of the case that suggests a sympathy for their cause?
I have never heard that. I would be fascinated to see a citation of some kind regarding that assertion, because it speaks to a tolerance heretofore not associated with post-reconquista Spain. Can you provide a link?
"Some admitted terrorist operatives? My understanding, based on the original article, was that the alleged terrorists he represented were acquitted."
From the additional article I provided: "Mohammed was the lawyer for Mohammed Qatanani, a Muslim Brotherhood operative who pled guilty to membership in the jihad terror group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood."
"Even if they might have actually been guilty in spite of their acquittal, they are due adequate representation."
No argument there.
"Is there anything from his conduct of the case that suggests a sympathy for their cause?"
Yes. Repeatedly seeking out similarly placed defendants. By analogy, as the article I provided demonstrates, if a lawyer continually represented members of the KKK, and was himself, say, a southern white male, we may be able to deduce that he has sympathies for this class of defendant, and thus may not be the most suitable person to elevate to the judiciary. Choosing a member of the judiciary is an entirely discretionary act. Given this man's history, his seeming affinity for Islamic terrorist defendants, and knowing the true nature of Islam - one that cannot be denied - it's a highly questionable appointment and makes concerned citizens, we so-called 'crazies,' doubt Christie's judgment. The truth is, NJ has a large Islamic population, Christie made a political choice to ingratiate himself to that community, and he disregarded the dangers of his choice to make himself look pluralistic. If I were a woman or a Jewish defendant in his court, I would be extremely concerned. In the final analysis, given the discretionary nature of the appointment, why take the chance? If I thought a judge was potentially a liberal, and might be inclinded to be an activist, I would not appoint them, period. You only have so many appointments as a governor, and you best make them count. This is the man Christie chose? I don't believe for one moment that this man was the best possible appointee for the NJ Superior Court - it was an ill-considered political choice, and it goes not only to the heart of Christie's judgment, but bespeaks a grave concern for conservatives regarding his future. What if this man were picking our next Supreme Court justice?