[Hugh the Scot]

Mr. Zmirak is an idiot. All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”.

[Zhang Fei]

[Mr. Zmirak is an idiot. All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”.]

---

Actually, his objection is that as a Catholic, she’ll recuse herself if the Pope has a strong opinion:

---

[What answer do Barrett and Garvey offer to the dilemma of a Catholic judge who is unwilling to enforce the clear dictates of the U.S. Constitution on capital punishment? To avoid “formal cooperation with evil,” she must recuse herself from ruling:

The moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in the first two or three cases (sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, affirming) is a sufficient reason for recusal under federal law. (p. 306)

The answer gets more emphatic further down:

[T]he principle at stake in capital sentencing is a moral one, not a factual or simply legal one. And the judge is asked to violate it—not to reason from different legal premises to morally unobjectionable conclusions (like Justice Brandeis did in Whitney). There is no way the judge can do his job and obey his conscience. The judge’s conscience tells him to impose a life sentence; federal law directs him to impose death. Because the judge is unable to give the government the judgment to which it is entitled under the law, § 455(b)(1) directs him to disqualify himself. (p. 334)

It is clear what Judge Barrett believes about the obligations of a Catholic judge when there is a direct conflict between her views of what the Church teaches and the U.S. Constitution dictates: they must recuse themselves.

That’s a scary prospect, if Judge Barrett is to become Justice Barrett.]

---

So a challenge to the constitutionality of life imprisonment comes up, something that Frank Bergoglio personally opposes, and Barrett recuses herself? No thanks.

[Zhang Fei]

Note that the excerpted passages are things she actually wrote.

[taildragger]

Same for Kavanaugh HtS. I was on a screed here and other sites, what he went through was Catholic Bashing, many of us saw through it.

[taildragger]

Same for Kavanaugh HtS. I was on a screed here and other sites, what he went through was Catholic Bashing, many of us saw through it.

[Celtic Conservative]

Anti-Catholicism, the last acceptable prejudice.

CC

[jocon307]

“All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”.

He’s a Catholic himself.

[traderrob6]

I'm not sure I agree with your “analysis”.

He's saying that being Catholic is great as with Thomas and Scalia as long as they act as jurist using the Constitution exclusively as their guiding light and not the teachings of the Pope or Catholicism in general.

He is correct inferring that some of her writings indicate the latter may be the case and that would indeed indicate a problem with her judicial reasoning.

[RedMonqey]

"Mr. Zmirak is an idiot. All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”."

He’s Catholic too

[Okeydoker]

He also is a catholic.

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

[crusher]

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

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's a superficial reading of a rather careful and principled argument.

Scalia and Thomas ---in the "Catholic" category too, --- are cited by Zmirak as role models who understand the necessary difference between a jurist and a prelate.

[Sirius Lee]

All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”.

Exactly. The deep state didn't hold a pillow over Scalia's face because he was "too Catholic" or "loved opera". A Conservative Catholic is not an oxymoron.

[Antoninus]

Mr. Zmirak is an idiot. All of his grave concerns boil down to “She’s Catholic”.

Uh, Zmirak is a Catholic, too. And one with a long and impressive resume. If he's urging caution, it's worth a look.

Author: John Zmirak at OnePeterFive