Amy Coney Barrett Is Not a Safe Pick for the Supreme Court.

Human Events ^ | September 19, 2019 | John Zmirak

[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, ...

[5th MEB]

What makes this simp think she is different from a lot of the rest of us Catholics, most of us think the current Pope is a MORON, COMMUNIST ANTI-CHRIST, LYING, STUPID PIECE OF SHIT!

Ask around, I think you will find my opinion is in the majority, if not stated quite as vehemently.

[familyop]

"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."

Definitely true--especially the part about Second Amendment rights. Barrett has written some arguments on one case involving the Second Amendment, and it might be of help to some felons (*not* including drug users). But her dissent does lean much in favor of supporting red flag laws.

[T Ruth]

which also takes away all sexually related attacks on the nominee.

I agree with Zmirak in this at least: "Why believe that leftists are incapable of crafting an obscene smear of either sex? Put nothing past these people. Nothing."

[skimbell]

Some more "low down".

Why the Left Hates Britt Grant

[Celtic Conservative]

Okay, I can see that.

CC

[Celtic Conservative]

The writer of the piece is anti-catholic, not those appointing them. But I see we disagree on this. So long as it’s respectful, that’s fine.

CC

[T Ruth]

At least we know where you stand! LOL.

[eyedigress]

OK. “What you see in the article, you don’t like”.

Go Ahead.

[familyop]

"Why then should conservatives, even Catholics, be concerned about a justice letting his or her faith influence his or her jurisprudence? The answer is simple: Pope Francis...Francis has used his position to promote a wide array of leftist political and theological stances that conflict with his predecessors’ teachings. These include capital punishment,"

Yes. Should we trust a noisy bandwagon of emotional, feminist rhetoric, or should we trust proof? Here's some proof.

Catholic Judges in Capital Cases [Information in re. Amy Coney Barrett]
Marquette Law Review, Notre Dame Law School ^ | 1998 | Amy Coney Barrett, John H. Garvey
Posted on 07/03/2018 2:29:31 AM PDT by familyop

Catholic Judges in Capital Cases

Amy Coney Barrett, Notre Dame Law School
John H. Garvey

Document Type
Article

Publication Date
1998

Publication Information
81 Marq. L. Rev. 303 (1997-1998)

Abstract
The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.

Comments
Reprinted with permission of Marquette Law Review.

Recommended Citation
Barrett, Amy Coney and Garvey, John H., "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases" (1998). Journal Articles. 527. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527

(Excerpt) Read more at scholarship.law.nd.edu ...

[T Ruth]

Thanks again. Judge Grant has the right enemies.

[CommerceComet]

I have thought that Barrett might be Trump’s bait and switch candidate. Have her out there as perceived nominee and let the liberals prepare for her while he actually has someone else queued up to be nominated.

[Okeydoker]

Agree. I was prepared to criticize but after reding his piece he is right. I wasnt aware that Barrett believes her catholicism overrules the Constitution. She should not be nominated if that is what she believes.

[Okeydoker]

He also is a catholic.

You obviously arent bright enough to understand his point since it is clearly a conservative viewpoint.

[familyop]

You are correct and would certainly want to see the evidence in my comment #62 and comment #69. Feel free to copy and paste information from and links to those in many of your future comments on the matter.

[familyop]

In his article, John Zmirak wrote that he’s “a Catholic who has been active in the pro-life movement since 1975.” So some of the accusations against him in this thread are strange, indeed.

[Farcesensitive]

Since you missed it in my first post I will repeat it:

I don’t like her “moral” opposition to the death penalty.
It indicates logical and philosophical issues that are not good.
It tells me she is likely to turn out to be a liberal in other areas in addition to being wrong on what is an important issue.

[eyedigress]

You are right.

[aposiopetic]

Sure. There is no shortage of red herrings. For example, the author finds problematic the following statement:

[W]e believe that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty. This means that they can neither themselves sentence criminals to death nor enforce jury recommendations of death.

However, the statement is irrelevant to the matter at issue, which is whether one appointed to the Court would hew to the Constitution: an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court would not be in a position to sentence criminals to death nor to enforce jury recommendations of death.

[crusher]

Interesting, given Zmirak’s status as an outspoken Catholic traditionalist.

[familyop]

"Some more "low down".
Why the Left Hates Britt Grant"

Yes. Very interesting! Everyone should follow that link and read the letter. There are some good references to Grant's work in it. If she has enough experience, why not? Britt Grant looks like a good nominee. Granted, though, the bandwagon of feminist felines of the stealth side of the left won't like her. [Rowr!] [Hiss!]