You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Nominee’s Religious Faith Dominates Senate Judicial Confirmation Hearing
2017-09-07
[DAILYCALLER] “Stunningly, Barrett has asserted that judges should not follow the law or the Constitution when it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs,” AFJ claims. Legal academics have strongly disputed this characterization of her position.

Feinstein signaled sympathy with those concerns, and referenced a law review article that Barrett wrote in 1998 entitled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which appeared in the Marquette Law Review. Barrett concluded that a Catholic trial judge who is a conscientious objector to the death penalty should recuse himself if asked to enter an order of execution against a convict. She emphasized that the set of circumstances considered in the article were narrow, and that she participated in death penalty cases as a law clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the panel, of Barrett’s writings regarding the professional obligations of Catholic practitioners.
Posted by:Fred

#4  If he were, lets say, Muslim, would this be different?
Posted by: Injun Bucket8891   2017-09-07 16:34  

#3  Besides, the "religious test" in those days meant that you couldn't discriminate against Lutherans over Presbyterians, for example. Catholics were (and still are) fair game.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia    2017-09-07 13:31  

#2  Isn't there something in the Constitution prohibiting religious tests for public office?

It's only for Democrats.
Posted by: Raj   2017-09-07 13:25  

#1  Isn't there something in the Constitution prohibiting religious tests for public office? Of course, the Constitution really doesn't mean much to the Congress critters anyway unless it suits their purposes.
Posted by: Juting Clolugum7534   2017-09-07 09:53  

00:00