re: Group asks Trump to withdraw Wis. judicial nominee who says Bible precedes Constitution

Barrett's views on the roll that the Church should play in a judge's deliberating process will likely not be limited to death cases based on the tenor of her writings. She also appears to think that judges are not bound to give significant weight to legal precedent when deciding cases.

She has no judicial experience and very scant litigation experience. Other judges with similar backgrounds have been nominated, of course, but if the administration thinks she is worthy of a judgeship, why not appoint her to a district judge position first.

As far as the debate as to the wording "bible precedes constitution" vs "bible can precede constitution", Barrett's writings make clear her position.

This is from her article "Catholic Judges In Capital Cases":

quote:

---

To anticipate our conclusions just briefly, we believe that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.

---

As far as to what extent other Church teachings would influence her work as a judge, it is impossible to project that with any degree of certainly. But from her statement on the death penalty, it would appear that she would not feel constrained to follow the law above the Church's teaches if there was a direct conflict between the two.

quote:

---

Hence, her conclusion that you've either been too lazy to find or are being too dishonest to acknowledge.

Actually, she SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT SHE IS constrained to follow the law.

---

In other words you haven't done any research and you're going to call me out?

And you are going to take her on her word when she knows her answer will have a direct bearing as to whether she will get the appeals court position.

"morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty".

What does that tell you?

quote:

---

In other words you haven't done any research and you're going to call me out?

---

Just for your lazy dishonest ignorant arse

Catholic Judges in Capital Cases

Here is an interesting cultural collision. The death penalty is back in
fashion in our legal system. Congress has created more than sixty new
capital crimes. The Attorney General has used the new laws to prosecute
Timothy McVeigh and Theodore Kaczynski. The federal courts
have lost some of their authority to review state executions. The
Catholic Church, with no sense of timing (or a fine sense of urgency),
has picked this moment to launch a campaign against capital punishment.
This puts Catholic judges in a bind. They 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's where assholes who want to lie stop.

Next paragraph immediately below that one.


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The legal system has a solution for this dilemma-it allows (indeed it
requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing
their job. This is a good solution. But it is harder than you think to determine
when a judge must recuse himself and when he may stay on the
job. Catholic judges will not want to shirk their judicial obligations.
They will want to sit whenever they can without acting immorally. So
they need to know what the church teaches, and its effect on them. On
the other hand litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial
justice, and that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical
pronouncements cannot dispense. We need to know whether
judges are sometimes legally disqualified from hearing cases that their
consciences would let them decide.

quote:

---

Just for your lazy dishonest ignorant arse

---

I read her paper too. Where do you think I got the quote, dipshit.

As usual, one can't have any kind of rational discussion with you because you're not only always right (only in your mind), but the other person is not only wrong, but they are stupid and lazy and any other insults that come to your fricked up mind.

Eat shite.

quote:

---

I read her paper too. Where do you think I got the quote, dipshit.

---

Oh. And just for the record.

The above is a lie.

You quoted the quotes provided to you by the morons opposing her.

No one believes you.

If you read her paper, how could you possibly find any issue with her position? Recusal is the appropriate action.

I see Bullethead doesn't respond well to getting pwned.