Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings. Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence and her religion is absolutely fair game in a confirmation hearing.
Because that's what the Supreme Court is really about Jim?
It's pretty amusing that the same people who clammor about liberals legislating from the bench are working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here...
I don't think you'd have Robert's vote either. Likely several conservative justices wouldn't go for it.
|
"Actually Barrett has frequently inserted her religion into her legal writings"
Into her personal writings, or judicial opinions? Huge difference. Here is one thing she wrote...
"judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.” She wrote that as a law student, it's exactly correct. She is saying judges should rely on the law. The horror!!!
"Combine that with her loose opinion on precedence"
Oh. So if a conservative judge makes a mistake, you are in favor of living with that mistake forever. Because of precedence.
"working tirelessly to socially engineer the SCOTUS for partisan reasons. No hypocrisy here..."
We want judges who understand they can't ignore the constitution when they feel like it. We want judges who will adhere to the constitution even when they might personally hate the result. There is zero hypocrisy there.