Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the very objection that was raised by opponents of JFK, to which he responded by saying - "But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion : NPR
Barrett should follow JFK's precedent.
Then by all means she should be confirmed and given the chance to resign her office should the occasion present itself. Why deny her the same opportunity JFK had to hold office.
What is the point of diversity if it can't live up to its promise. Its meaningless.
Where was the objection when Obama was stacking the courts with liberal activist judges. Silent !!!
It is the power of the office and the holder of that office to decide who to nominate. The Senate to confirm or deny the nominee under the rules of the constitution.
She said Brennan - and judges in general - should have placed his Catholicism - which opposes capital punishment - before the Constitution and before judicial precedent when deciding on capital cases. I haven't watched the hearing, so I don't know whether she has said that she herself would prioritize her religion, in either capital cases or in other cases, such as abortion or assisted suicide. But I think it's logical to think that she would.
Her article was published in 2013, so that is pretty recent.
The article I saw was written in 1998. It concerned circumstance when a judge with ethical convictions against capital punishment should consider recusal. She focuses on Catholic judges because she's Catholic, taught at Notre Dame, and published in the Marquette Law Review. However, she referred to other religions and non-religious people who could encounter a similar dilemma.
Not once did she state that a judge should rule in accord with their moral convictions or religious teachings. She's being borked by groups and their useful idiots who don't want her on the bench .
If that person said, as a judge, I intend to put the laws of Judaism ahead of the U.S. Constitution, then yes, we all should have grave concerns.
Did you have an issue when that racist Hispanic was appointed a judge and she said her experiences as a Latina woman shape her judicial decisions? Pretty much saying screw the Constitution, my race comes first.
The article I saw was written in 1998. It concerned circumstance when a judge with ethical convictions against capital punishment should consider recusal. She focuses on Catholic judges because she's Catholic, taught at Notre Dame, and published in the Marquette Law Review. However, she referred to other religions and non-religious people who could encounter a similar dilemma.
Not once did she state that a judge should rule in accord with their moral convictions or religious teachings. She's being borked by groups and their useful idiots who don't want her on the bench .
You're right that the article was published in 1998, I missed that.
But she did indeed say that a judge's Catholic beliefs on certain issues take precedence over the Constitution.
Did you have an issue when that racist Hispanic was appointed a judge and she said her experiences as a Latina woman shape her judicial decisions? Pretty much saying screw the Constitution, my race comes first.
No, they had no issue or objection with that. They have selective objections on issues that allow them to stand on both sides of the fence if it's to their advantage. The principal of hypocrisy followed to the letter.
Then by all means she should be confirmed and given the chance to resign her office should the occasion present itself. Why deny her the same opportunity JFK had to hold office.
What is the point of diversity if it can't live up to its promise. Its meaningless.
Where was the objection when Obama was stacking the courts with liberal activist judges. Silent !!! It is the power of the office and the holder of that office to decide who to nominate. The Senate to confirm or deny the nominee under the rules of the constitution.
Well, of course. That's what's going on, isn't it? The Senate is questioning her about something she wrote in order to decide whether to confirm her or not. If she gives a particular official religious teaching more weight than the Constitution, well, that seems like a legitimate concern to me. The Senate is not obligated to confirm each and every presidential nominee.
As a former Roman Catholic I'd be very concerned. Is this Catholic judge willing to do the church's bidding in pedophelia cases? How far is she willing to go?
There's a movie regarding government institutions (the police and the judiciary) covering up for pedophile priests in Boston. The movie is based on actual facts. It's called Spotlight and it's on Netflix.
Watch it.
Should we not have similar concerns on Hispanic, Black, and Jewish judges ? If we can't be tolerant of diversity why promote it as a solution for improvement and greatness ?
I watched the movie long ago.
Using the same logic could it not be applied to other religions and even race ? Yet the constitution says it can not be a consideration for office. It was carefully considered when the constitution was formed in the original and not added later as an after thought. There is a process to change the constitution. It wasn't meant to be ignored. Follow it or change it. Its the foundation for orderly society.
The dems and the left continually display, "Do as I say NOT as I do"!
The dem party ENDORSED JFK, the 1st Catholic President, NOW being a Catholic disqualifies you to serve in our government!
No. Did you even pay attention to the questions asked?? The issue isn't that she is Catholic, the issue is would she make decisions based on her personal religious beliefs and that was based off something she wrote on it.
Did you have an issue when that racist Hispanic was appointed a judge and she said her experiences as a Latina woman shape her judicial decisions? Pretty much saying screw the Constitution, my race comes first.
Did she say she would use her Latina roots to usurp the U.S. Constitution when she was making a ruling? No, she did not. The person in question in this thread, however, stated just that--that a judge's Catholicism should overrule the U.S. Constitution.
Should we not have similar concerns on Hispanic, Black, and Jewish judges ? If we can't be tolerant of diversity why promote it as a solution for improvement and greatness ?
I watched the movie long ago.
Using the same logic could it not be applied to other religions and even race ? Yet the constitution says it can not be a consideration for office. It was carefully considered when the constitution was formed in the original and not added later as an after thought. There is a process to change the constitution. It wasn't meant to be ignored. Follow it or change it. Its the foundation for orderly society.
If they said, in an important piece of writing, that their hispanicity, blackness, or jewishness should override constitutional concerns or legal precedence, yes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
