Support Free Republic, Folks! Donate today!
Posted on 04/11/2019 10:39:48 AM PDT by jazusamo
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in a recent appearance that he does not think religious beliefs interfere with a judge’s job, and criticized attempts by Democrats to impose “religious tests” on judicial nominees.
Thomas, in remarks last week that were first reported by The Daily Caller, was asked about the 2017 confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett where Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told the Catholic: “The dogma lives loudly within you and that’s a concern.”
He was asked if religious convictions should be taken into consideration when lawmakers were considering a judicial pick.
“I thought we got away from religious tests,” Thomas, himself a Catholic, said at Pepperdine University School of Law. “I don't think I know a single judge that had allowed religion to interfere with their jobs.”
In January, Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, also raised concerns about lawyer Brian Buescher's membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee's review of his nomination by President Trump to sit on the U.S. District Court in Nebraska.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
I still don’t understand the RBG situation. Apparently she is alive, but that really seems hard to believe. I eagerly await her replacement by Amy Coney Barrett.
Exactly, the Rats mentioned and many of their cohorts think they’re special and that the Constitution doesn’t apply to them.
Amen, the sooner the better!
I fully agree that there should not be a test.
But, around 20% of America is Catholic and maybe 2% is Jewish. These two groups comprise 100% of the Supreme court if you count Gorsuch who was raised and educated Catholic and went Episcopal as a flag of convenience when he got married.
However you slice it this charge for Coney-Barrett is going to make the court 7-2 Catholic - Jewish.
Mormons are about 2% of America. Depending who you listen to around 25% of America is atheist or otherwise devoid of religion. If the Supreme Court was 6 atheists and 3 mormons, we would all scratch our heads and ask what the hell was going on. Around 13% of America is African American. If 6 or 7 of the Justices were black, it would be statistically odd.
Time for a Non-Ivy Baptist or other evangelical to get a seat.
I certainly would like to see a non-Ivy!
“Cow colleges\universities” need to be represented!
Support Free Republic, Folks! Donate today!
The a-hole left will undoubtedly put a Muslim on the court if they get a chance. THAT would not be good at all.
There is just something wrong on the court. It is basically east coast, Ivy, Catholic and Jewish. The other 78% of America geographically and religiously is excluded.
It is just odd. And it implies nothing good.
Agree!
Fly over country completely unrepresented!
I’m all for a religious test. They have to be real Christian (that may include Catholic) or real Jewish. The test of reality is if they are conservative or not. If they are not conservative then they are not Christian or Jewish.
(Of course the Constitution forbids a religion test)
RBG must have Keith Richards’ Doctor
The Democrats are not paying any attention to that provision now. A sincere Christian of any denomination is anathema to our would-be Socialist overlords.
That is one of those restrictions that could be changed in a Convention-of-States amendment.
Anyone who is a professed Muslim should be excluded from elected or appointed positions of authority in the United States Government.
I’m fine with that, as long as the totalitarian political and military creed of Islam isn’t included in that.
You’re applying a religious test ...
That’s expressly unconstitutional.
I understand your concerns as to the seemingly unbalanced SCOTUS re: faith. If a conservative Catholic is nominated, he/she is going to get grilled, particularly re: Pro-life. If a conservative Evangelical is nominated he/she will also get grilled. The difference is another factor - Southern or non elite Midwestern.
Optimally, the best candidates who respect life and our US Constitution ought to be the critical, determining factors. Prejudice against Southerners and Mid-westerners often prevails with the leftist Democrats. Have you noticed that the Catholic justices are from ethnic groups which are traditionally Catholic? We will never see a conservative Catholic who is Polish or Germanic. All the Catholic Justices have been Italian, Irish or Hispanic - groups favored by many ‘elite people’ on the East Coast. These groups have traditionally been reliable Democrat voters, so this is a factor that is in addition to whether the nominee is Conservative or not. It looks like the plan is to nominate a conservative who might appeal to a specific ethnic group. Sometimes it works! Scalia, Alito, Kavanaugh, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Roberts, etc.
My belief is that after the Kavanaugh vote, this will disappear, and ethnicity will no longer matter.
I am aware that conservative, Protestant candidates for judicial appointments have been drilled by anti-Christian Democrats, and voted down. The only reason is that the Democrats think they can get way with it because the nominee has a more Anglo-Saxon name or something.[???] Or, the classify all Evangelical Christians as imbeciles and deplorables!
We should stick together and not allow this to continue. We need good Constitutionalists on the court, who respect our laws, and respect human life, and religion ought not be a factor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.