I will admit that Zmirak muddied up his argument bigtime via his long excursions about Catholic-this vs Pope Francis-that. All rather irrelevant to his main point.
But his basic argument is that a SC justice is to make a finding, not on whether such-and-such a law is wise or imbecilic, virtuous or diabolical, but on whether it is Constitutional.
I would argue that finding that the death penalty is Constitutional, would in no way impugn her virtue or make her a formal or material cooperator in a given execution, or in all subsequent executions. If she thinks it does, one wonders whether she thinks her decision constitutes Eternal Moral Law rather than what it is and ought to be, flat dry jurisprudential textual exegesis.
For the record, if I in the SenateI would vote for Judge Barrett for the USCC. But Zmirak has raised a valid point.
My initial post encapsulated my entire opinion on this topic. Apparently you’re at least partially in agreement with me as well.
The entirety of his opinion piece was based on her being Catholic (and the Pope), and if his intent was to do otherwise, he failed because he’s an idiot.
Has she recused herself from any relevant cases? If so, the author failed to mention any of them.
I’m not invested one way or another in Amy Coney Barrett I’m interested in conservative and constitutional jurisprudence, and as I’ve repeatedly stated, the author has not provided a shred of evidence that she would provide anything less, or named any judicial candidate who would provide more.