Are Democrats Testing a Future Strategy against Amy Coney Barrett? | National

2 Likes

does any democrat on this board see anything wrong with her?

It seems Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still “missing”. Anyone else notice that?

She is 85 and just had major surgery. I wouldn’t expect anyone in that situation to be up and running soon.

Democrats are trying to hide the fact she is dying. Fox News ran that graphic that she passed “accidentally”. Those graphics are pre-made, so they had that at the ready based off inside medical leaks that her health is failing badly.

Pelosi has delayed the State of the Union as long as she can because Supreme Justices are supposed to attend. On Tuesday if Ginsburg does not show it further gives proof that she’s not well.

Plus, they fear Trump will get a third Supreme Court pick.

That has been going on for a while. All the news stories about how healthy, fit and sharp she is were propaganda.

Unless you have some source for that it’s just speculation.

We are getting a little off subject here. The thread is about Amy Coney Barrett. Not RBG.

No, their opposition is not a test strategy; it is an expression of they way they think. The final sentence in that article captures it exactly:

“…they have ceased to view judges as neutral arbiters of the law and of the Constitution.”

That in a nutshell explains their position exactly. They don’t see “their” judges as neutral so it would never occur to them that “opposition” judges would be neutral either. It is no longer (and hasn’t been for decades) expected that judges are there to interpret the Constitution, but rather that they will simply rule based on their personal views of which side should prevail regardless of what the law says.

2 Likes

It’s a trending speculation in the media right now. Again, an appearance on Tuesday night will tell a lot.

Who do you think Barrett would be replacing? RBG…

Yes, there is some conspiracy stuff floating around. That’s not what this thread is about.

Another case of conservative media types explaining what Democrats think.
:roll_eyes:

I thought you weren’t a Democrat. Do you have a problem with Amy Barrett as a judge? If so what?

Huh?

Have you read this article?
Catholic Judges in Capital Cases

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

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.

A Catholic lawyer that thinks this way might better suited to a professorship than a judgeship.

What do you mean ‘huh’. You said that conservatives shouldn’t speak for Democrats. Well how do you know he is wrong?

And what does Judge Barrett’s joint paper mean to you? Why would that opinion make her unfit to be a judge?

1 Like

When driving I listen to conservative talk radio, the predominant feature of which is conservatives telling tales of what people they oppose really mean, and really think. Some lap it up. I find the straw man building tiresome.

If she says that she would find herself unable to execute her oath of office, and instead would opt out of cases when the law conflicts with her beliefs, I think she should find other work, and we should find other judges. Note that none of the other Catholics on the SCOTUS seem to have this issue.

If judges were in fact viewed as “neutral arbiters of the law and of the Constitution” then there wouldn’t be the battles we’ve seen over confirmations. It is precisely because they are not seen that way that the fights have been so ferocious.

2 Likes

Perhaps. But then it is equally plausible that the Conservative are driving the politicization.

But this isn’t an argument that Democrats don’t view the judiciary as I described. It is an excuse for why they believe it.

The faith is strong with her.

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that — you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

  • Senator Dianne Feinstein

Well, the good news is that her understanding of the church’s teaching on capital punishment is inaccurate, so the conflict she sees between her moral obligation and her professional one doesn’t actually exist. She is sure to be examined closely on this point so it will be interesting to see what she thinks about this today.

On the contrary, the may very believer it and defend against the Republican agenda undermining it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.