Posted on 09/20/2019 4:54:32 PM PDT by T Ruth
Her writings on faith and jurisprudence should worry conservatives.
The left is engaged in full-on panic over control of the U.S. Supreme Court—which Justice Scalia once described as having become a de facto sitting Constitutional Convention, subjecting every law in every state to the views of five lifetime appointees: an oligarchy of lawyers from Harvard, Stanford, and Yale.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health concerns continue to loom, liberals are trying to spook Speaker Mitch McConnell into swearing off confirmation hearings for any Trump appointee during an election year. At the same time, The New York Times and The New Yorker are trying to drive Brett Kavanaugh off the court with still more unsupported, second- or third-hand allegations. The spectacle is positively Orwellian.
The next Supreme Court appointment, assuming Trump gets one, will be pivotal; we can’t afford for him to waste it by choosing a justice whom he thinks will be “easier to confirm,” despite his or her weaknesses.
Trump should recognize that no conservative appointment will be “easy.” The left has already shown us their playbook. It reads: treat as “literally Hitler” any jurist who might return to an honest reading of the Constitution on Second Amendment rights, abortion, or executive authority on immigration.
President Trump should not take the salacious nature of the smear campaign against Brett Kavanaugh to mean that he must appoint a woman. Why believe that leftists are incapable of crafting an obscene smear of either sex? Put nothing past these people. Nothing.
***
There will be no easy appointments; Trump should make it count. Trump’s presumptive choice is Judge Amy Coney Barrett, currently sitting on the Seventh Circuit. But I have profound questions about Barrett’s suitability for the high court, ...
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
oo many females on the SCourt already. shouldn’t be so many. I hope Trump appoints a male to replace RBG this year.
Being morally opposed to the death penalty is a different issue from whether it’s constitutionally permissible. She’s entitled to be opposed to it, as long as her personal views don’t determine her view of whether it is permitted by the Constitution.
That;s the issue judges are supposed to rule on, not whether they’d vote for something if they were legislators.
She’s certainly one to consider.
You realize that neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett was on President Trump’s original list of Supreme court candidates.
That’s encouraging.
Grant was a clerk for Kavanaugh.
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/who-justice-britt-grant/
If a judge believes that a case was wrongly decided, is he or she bound by precedent? I don’t think so; I think you have to rule in accordance with your view of teh Constitution and the law.
It wouldn’t be an additional woman. She or Grant or whomever would almost certainly be replacing Ginsburg.
“The Constitution leaves it up to the states.”
Does it? I’m as much of a Tenth amendment, states’ rights person as there is, but consider the following:
Amendment V: “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
Amendment XIV: “ nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
One can argue that these two provisions, especially taken in tandem, prohibit the Federal government and any state from legalizing abortion.
“Being morally opposed to the death penalty is a different issue from whether it’s constitutionally permissible. She’s entitled to be opposed to it, as long as her personal views don’t determine her view of whether it is permitted by the Constitution.
That;s the issue judges are supposed to rule on, not whether they’d vote for something if they were legislators.”
I understand the difference but the article points out that she might not and if she recuses as a member of SCOTUS the result will be much worse than if she recused at a lower court.
And my primary objection is that it shows that she is disposed to logical and philosophical errors that might affect her beliefs about other Constitutional issues.
If she thinks the death penalty is morally wrong in spite of the obvious logic and the clear scriptural command then she might very well think that something was Constitutional in spite of the clear wording of the Constitution.
No matter where the jurist find his faiths, we are all accoutable to God, the "Supreme Judge of the world", for the "rectitude of our intentions" and actions.
Totally agree with you.
I think I understand that.
Thanks for teeing up the author’s essential falacy!
He’s Catholic, but like many he doesn’t like the current Pope.
His premise is that if her Catholicism aligns her decisions with the Pope, she is not a good choice.
I would hope her Catholicism aligns her decisions with scripture and God’s Will first and foremost.
If I was a justice, I would secretly employ a team dedicated specifically to tracking down and smacking around, if not killing anyone who threatened me.
Given her past statement in print that all Catholic judges should recuse from imposing the clearly Constitutional death penalty, in light of the objections of the U.S. Catholic bishops and a single document written by one pope (reversing his predecessors’ teaching)—would Barrett feel obliged to recuse herself on important immigration votes? The U.S. bishops have made their position on immigration crystal clear—and so has Pope Francis. It’s de facto open borders. In 2017, 24 U.S. bishops and a highly placed Vatican cardinal, Peter Turkson, called for U.S. Catholics to “disrupt Trump” and use church facilities to hide illegal aliens. Pope Francis just planted a huge bronze, sentimental statue of migrants in the middle of St. Peter’s Square.
Does Barrett feel bound by this new, developing doctrine? If Pope Francis changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church on immigration, as he already has on capital punishment, would she then feel bound?
Again
Given her past statement in print that all Catholic judges should recuse from imposing the clearly Constitutional death penalty, in light of the objections of the U.S. Catholic bishops and a single document written by one pope (reversing his predecessors’ teaching)
Thanks for the link. Interesting and troubling.
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.