Amy Coney Barrett: What to know about Supreme Court front-runner
Category: News & Politics
Via: kdmichigan • 4 years ago • 138 commentsBy: Johnny Magdaleno (The Indianapolis Star)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Amy Coney Barrett of South Bend may soon become a household name.
The appeals court judge and University of Notre Dame law professor is expected to be one of President Donald Trump's top picks to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday.
Barrett was on the shortlist to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy when he retired in 2018. Trump instead chose conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Here's what you need to know about Barrett:
A dedicated mother of seven
Barrett, 48, was born and raised in New Orleans, Louisiana. Her mother was a French teacher and her father was a lawyer. After graduating from the University of Notre Dame's law school at the top of her class, she worked as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and other federal court justices before returning to her alma mater as a law teacher.
Barrett has been described by colleagues and friends as a dedicated mom of seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti. Her youngest child has Down Syndrome.
In October 2017, with just an hour to go until she was voted into the 7th District Court of Appeals by the U.S. Senate, Barrett was outside trick-or-treating with her kids.
A lightning rod on abortion issue
Barrett's strong Catholic faith has placed her firmly in the eye of the national debate over who will replace Ginsburg, and what ideology the new judge will bring.
Her confirmation hearing in 2017 became a lightning rod for conservative outcry after California Sen. Dianne Feinstein questioned whether or not Barrett could separate her religious faith from her duty as a judge. "The dogma lives loudly within you," Feinstein said during the hearing. Barrett insisted that her professional beliefs and her religious beliefs would be kept separate.
Amy Coney Barrett:What she said about politics in courts
Three years later, Barrett's rulings have invited similar questions. But those who know her say it's unfair to narrowly define her. "It's been disorienting to see the smartest person I know reduced to how she might vote on [abortion], when she is so much more than that," Alex Blair, an attorney and one of Barrett's former University of Notre Dame students, told the South Bend Tribune.
Active in South Bend community
At her home in South Bend, Barrett is far from a polemic figure. She is an active community member who is highly regarded by students and staff at Notre Dame.
Barrett was named "Distinguished Professor of the Year" three separate years, a title decided by students. She is also active in the community, having held a board position at South Bend's Trinity School, and a spot on the St. Joseph Catholic Church Parish Pastoral Council.
Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins issued a statement on Saturday praising Barrett as a potential pick for the Supreme Court. "The same impressive intellect, character and temperament that made Professor Barrett a successful nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals would serve her equally well as a nominee for the nation's highest court," said Jenkins.
Controversy surrounds religious group
Barrett is part of a Christian religious group called People of Praise that started in South Bend and now has a presence across the U.S. and in Canada and Jamaica. The group itself is not a church, but its members follow a movement called "charismatical renewal" and believe in speaking in tongues and miracle healings.
They have been scrutinized in the media for using the title "handmaiden" to describe their women leaders, and for exerting control over the personal lives of their members. Leaders of the group say they mostly function as a support network for their members and deny having any influence over the decisions of members in positions of power, like Barrett.
Stands on immigration, abortion
In her three years as a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has authored more than 100 opinions on cases that have come to her desk from across the Midwest.
In a case from June 2020 she was the sole voice on a three-judge panel that supported allowing federal enforcement of Trump's public charge immigration law in Illinois, which prevents immigrants from getting legal residency in the United States if they rely on public benefits like food stamps or housing vouchers.
Tags
Who is online
458 visitors
Easy pick for MR Trump lets ram her thru.
She will do marvelous.
She has already been vetted and battle tested, yet I prefer Ms Lagoa!
how is the left going to smear her? LOL
I can't wait to find out who amy raped 20yrs ago.... ha.
I’m sure there’s evidence in her eighth grade yearbook that she said fart. Immediate disqualification.
LOL
If not, maybe there's a pic of her "culturally appropriating" a Kente cloth like Pelosi and Schumer did in 2020.
You're right Sean, they'll go all the way back there, not only to see if she said fart, but to find out if she actually farted in public!
Around this house, that would move her to the front of the line.
Which ever woman Trump chooses to fill the seat we will support her!
All the left needs to know to put every stop on her they can is that she is simply not the liberal left wing staunch Democrat they demand. Nothing else matters.
They are out there!
[deleted]
She won't be a "real" woman because she doesn't toe the line like liberals demand woman should. Just like white liberals decide who "real" blacks are.
Identity politics are poison and many progressives have taken a fatal dose.
Well, I would like for any liberal to prove me wrong, but I think those on here are even scared to do so.
[deleted]
[deleted]
removed for context
one problem... [deleted]
the democrats have been on the wrong side of every major civil rights movement.
but, the left has no problem saying they did it all.... LOL
At the request of Susan B. Anthony, Sen. A.A. Sargent, a Republican from California, introduced the 19th Amendment in 1878. Sargent’s amendment (also known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment) was defeated four times by a Democrat-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress in 1919, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed the House in May of that year and in the Senate in June.
ok fine,
[deleted- is that better?]
Maybe it's me, but it seems like the "front runner" often is not the person who gets picked.
So it looks like it the religious bigots will be leading the charge.
Other ideas to consider - especially because of the looming election - are Joan Larsen from the 6th Circuit, and Barbara Lagoa from the 11th Circuit. Both are from critical swing states, Larsen from Michigan, and Lagoa from Florida. Sometimes, a thing like that is enough to swing some votes. Also Lagoa is Hispanic, and that could also weigh in her favor.
I don't think Barrett.'s a lock by any means but I think the anti-Catholic backlash that's already brewing may help her candidacy, particularly as it resonates in the Midwest.
Margaret Ryan is also a viable candidate, in addition to the candidates you mentioned. .
Lovely.
this part piqued my interest as well. I wonder who got her off her back and helped her escape the kitchen.
An illustration of glossolalia.
One can only hope this SCotUS candidate does not actually believe this stuff.
Barrett appears to be part of a group that is based on conservative Catholicism. I think fundamentalists are much more prevalent in evangelical Protestants than in Catholics, but there are some. Steve Bannon belongs to a right wing Catholic group based in Italy.
I am in favor of vetting out those who hold irrational beliefs such as glossolalia (note: I do not know she holds this belief, but the evidence is not encouraging).
I believe it's called the Ginsburg rule. Usually when the question of abortion arises, they go incoherent!
JFK was guilty too/s
I suggest you read my answer instead of trying to reframe it to meet your desires. I am not in favor of a religious test. First of all, 'Tex', that would eliminate likely every member of the SCotUS. Second, not all religious beliefs are clearly irrational such as glossolalia.
Take your strawman elsewhere.
What are you talking about? Who is 'they'?
for self professed religious nuts, I certainly am. a metal chair, 8 feet of rope, and a 500 gallon water tank. if they float, they were destined by god to be seated on the SCOTUS.
The nominees, of course!
When one has to explain a simple joke it kind of kills it.
Should that apply to Plessy v. Ferguson? I'm just trying to get a sense of how much you believe in Judges accepting settled law.
No you tried to reframe my answer into a religious test.
And you continue to do this in spite of a crystal clear answer from me.
Take your trolling comments elsewhere.
I put his hilarious religious gibberish thru google translator and got back "rock and rolled torched my lame career, then I ended up endorsing a cult leader for POTUS and selling wealthy old WASP's walk in bathtubs".
That shouldn't matter unless there is evidence the judge has been setting aside the law and making judgments based on those beliefs. Even then, it would have to be something beyond the bounds of normal judicial discretion. In which case they probably shouldn't be a judge now, much less sit on the Supreme Court in the future. Her record should be all the vetting anyone requires.
How about a candidate justice who believes the Earth is flat? Should we set that aside as long as there is no evidence this has affected past decisions?
Yes.
Unless you can demonstrate that the judge's beliefs have been leveraged to create injustice, there is no reason to disqualify her over it. She is free to believe whatever she likes. It is improper to deny her a position because of her beliefs.
That's exactly what a religious test is. I understand people don't want it to be called that because they know it's wrong, but it is what it is. It's like "I'm not racist/sexist/homophobic/islamophobic but . . . " and then they go on to say something that is one of those things. Here we have (and I'm paraphrasing), "I don't believe in religious tests, but a candidate should be disqualified because of her beliefs." It's the same.
That is not a "religious test". That is a reality check. If the woman believed the Wizard of Oz was god, I would be concerned to.
And while we are having this discussion, where do you stand on Scientologists become justices?
I have said pretty clearly what I think. When you start disqualifying people because of their beliefs, you are using a religious test. What matters is how judges apply the law, not what they personally believe. Your "reality check" is a religious test.
only on their own personal planets ...
So you are fine with Scientologists, yes or no.
So you are fine with Scientologists, yes or no.
No, it's a saintiy test. Do you believe that insane people should be on the court?
Yes. How many ways do I need to say it? Beliefs are irrelevant. What matters is how a judge applies the law.
You are welcome to present evidence of an examination by a trained mental health expert evaluating the candidate's sanity. I think you will be disappointed, though.
I am not in favor of a religious test.
yet you you just explicitly proposed one.
The fact that these beliefs are held by a religious group is simply a coincidence. I did not write anything about her being a Catholic nor did I even imply that there should be a religious test. I explicitly focused on the irrational belief of glossolalia (and miracle healing).
Further, I have already addressed this. I have stated that I am not proposing a religious test but would vet a SCotUS regarding irrational beliefs such as glossolalia , flat-Earth, aliens on Earth taking human form, etc.
The question was asked and answered yet a select group here is driven to put words in my mouth. I am okay with resolving ambiguity. But when the ambiguity of language is resolved and one continues to try to push the same false representation of an author's intent, that is pure intellectual dishonesty.
I understand that you don't want your idea to be thought of as a religious test, but that is exactly what it is. Until you are willing to take your focus off of her beliefs and instead look at her judicial record, you are engaging in a religious test.
I disagree. A judge —especially a SCotUS justice— who is known to believe the Earth is flat (and other clearly irrational beliefs) should be excluded from consideration during the vetting process. In fact, such a person should never be nominated for a public position of power.
I agree with this statement, but you are now generalizing to beliefs in general when I am explicitly speaking of clearly irrational beliefs.
Again you are translating a specific belief to beliefs in general. That is misrepresenting what I wrote (and it is moving the goalposts). This is not about disqualifying people for beliefs in general but rather specific clearly irrational beliefs. You might think it perfectly fine to seat a justice who believes the Earth is flat but I find that to be entirely irresponsible.
So you exclude that person because of her beliefs, not her judicial performance. That is a religious test. Period.
No, beliefs is general would include things like "mac n cheese is the best comfort food" or "the designated hitter is an abomination." You are specifically talking about religious beliefs. People who believe in flat earth or speaking in tongues cite to the Bible to support their beliefs. Those beliefs are clearly religious.
Why, because it happens to be a religious belief?
Looks like you want to exclude all irrational beliefs from scrutiny if they happen to be religious. That is irresponsible. Someone who thinks aliens possess human beings or believes that people speaking gibberish are 'speaking in tongues' should not have a position of judgment over others.
And if the belief were of alien possession or flat Earth, would you deem those religious beliefs too?
Give me a break.
Those doing the vetting. Read what I wrote:
Who do you think would do the vetting of a SCotUS justice? The vetting is done by the PotUS and his supporting nomination staff and then finally by the Senate.
Amazing you do not know how this works.
intent, that is pure intellectual dishonesty.
It’s pure intellectual dishonesty to claim you don’t believe in religious tests, but then turn around and say anyone with said religious belief can’t be a judge. You can’t square that circle no matter how indignant you get.
its like saying of course Christians can serve as judges, but anyone who believes that Christ rose from the dead must be barred from the bench for having irrational beliefs.
You're entitled to your opinion, but that is a religious test.
Yes. That's literally a religious test.
No, that's the Constitution.
I am not deeming anything to be a religious belief. The person who believes it will let us know if it is a religious belief or not.
Where did I ever say I support religious tests?
You keep characterizing my objection as 'religious' when I have stated it is due to being 'irrational'.
Given I have been clear and have offered examples of clearly non-religious but irrational beliefs your continued refusal to acknowledge what I wrote and instead reframe it is intellectual dishonesty.
So if a justice who believed in alien possession or flat Earth or ... deemed their belief to be religious, you would not allow them to vetted based on those beliefs??
Right.
What part of
is unclear for you?
Your argument would allow a candidate to claim that their belief that they were abducted by aliens who are incrementally inhabiting the bodies of Earthlings is religious and therefore disallowed as a negative during vetting / confirmation.
What part of the absurdity is unclear to you?
The part where you think we should look at that instead of (or even in addition to) the judicial record. I find that absurd. You want to ignore the Constitution and basic logic. If this person has been a good judge, who gives a rip what they privately believe about the world?
You would disallow anyone to vote against a SCotUS candidate for cause on belief in unicorns, Santa Claus and alien possession if the candidate deems these to be religious beliefs??
Keep trying, if you must TiG, but the answer will be the same.
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"
You didn't answer my question, so I will post it again:
If this person has been a good judge, who gives a rip what they privately believe about the world?
Yeah, you will keep deflecting from my question.
And I have answered your question repeatedly. Here we go again:
Well everyone should be concerned if a judge holds clearly irrational beliefs. Again, I find it fascinating that you would actually disallow a vote against a judge for cause because the judge believes something like:
As long as the judge declares these beliefs as 'religious'.
Any irrational belief, no matter how extreme, is just fine with you if the person holding the belief says: 'Not so fast, I consider these religious beliefs'.
Leave religion out of it. Is it valid to vote against a justice for cause based on the justice holding an irrational belief such as any listed @7.1.66?
When you explicitly adopted one by claiming "I am in favor of vetting out those who hold irrational beliefs such as glossolia." That's a textbook religious test. You are premising their ability to serve as a judge on their religious belief. It's truly bizarre you won't admit what's obvious. Words have meanings that you can't alter by simple declarations. A cat remains a cat even if you claim it's not a cat, but a flower. That's what you are doing. It's like watching someone declare they aren't a racist, make extremely racist statements, and then say, well, I'm not a racist because I said I'm not a racist. It's how juveniles argue.
keep characterizing my objection as 'religious' when I have stated it is due to being 'irrational'.
Because it's a textbook religious test. Under your "standard," every believer would be disqualified, because they believe irrational things. Claiming it's an "irrationality test" rather than a religious test misses the point entirely. By applying an "irrationality" test to someone's religious beliefs, you've created a religious test. Game, set, match. Discussion over.
It doesn't matter what excuse you use or what you call it, if you are subjecting someone's religious beliefs to any sort of test to see if they can serve as a judge, you are applying a religious test. It doesn't get anymore straightforward than that.
That’s absurd. I haven’t deflected from anything. I have given you the same answer half a dozen times by now. I’ll tell you again:
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"
1) Why? If it has no impact on their job performance, why should anyone care?
2) Who are you to decide what an irrational belief is?
3) Where in the Constitution does it allow for discrimination in job placement based on perceived private irrational beliefs?
What you don’t seem to appreciate is that the Founders understood all of this already. Among themselves, Puritans, Catholics, Quakers, and so on, already thought anyone extreme who didn’t believe as they did. You haven’t stumbled onto something they failed to consider. They put this clause in the Constitution because they knew that judging people based on their religious beliefs instead of their performance would lead to problems. War, even.
What amazes me is that people will argue for a strict separation between church and state. They will say religion should not be a part of government decisions. And then these same people will - verrrry hypocritically - declare that they can judge someone fit for a government position based on their religious beliefs.
How could you possibly not understand that I have objected to this due to irrationality, not because it is religious? Answer: I am confident that you do understand and are instead making a strawman argument.
I have repeatedly and purposely offered non-religious examples of irrational belief for emphasis and stated explicitly that the religious aspect is simply coincidental. Yet you continue to pretend otherwise.
Note also that I raised no objection to this justice on the basis of her Catholic faith and upfront clarified that such would be ridiculous as it would exclude virtually all candidates.
Yeah, no kidding. If only I had stated that upfront then maybe my position would be clear to you. Well, oddly enough, I did state that upfront @7.1.9:
But it is much easier to ignore what people write and just invent a strawman to argue. Not impressive and intellectually dishonest.
And you interpret this to mean that any belief held by a candidate can be deemed —by the candidate— to be a religious belief and that will prevent anyone voting for cause against that candidate due to said belief.
So I posted this which you ignored:
Well everyone should be concerned if a judge holds clearly irrational beliefs. Again, I find it fascinating that you would actually disallow a vote against a judge for cause because the judge believes something like:
As long as the judge declares these beliefs as 'religious'.
Any irrational belief, no matter how extreme, is just fine with you if the person holding the belief says: 'Not so fast, I consider these religious beliefs'.
If a candidate held ALL of the above beliefs and declared them all to be religious beliefs, would you disallow a vote against this candidate for cause due to holding these beliefs?
Illustrate just how far you are willing to go into the absurd.
I find it incredible how some will resort to such blatant intellectual dishonesty. Flat out misrepresentation of what I wrote coupled with ignoring specific statements to the contrary.
Throughout this entire thread I have stated and illustrated that my objection is due to irrationality, not to religious belief. No way on the planet that you have missed this. Yet here you are telling me that I have objected on religious grounds when I have stated that I am objecting on the grounds of irrationality.
It would be different had I objected due to the fact that she believes in the Trinity or that she believes the Pope has a special relationship with God. Those are common religious beliefs (of Catholics). But I did not. I objected to the irrational belief that people can speak in tongues and would have objected the same way if she believed that slavery is a fine institution or that the Earth is the center of the universe. It does not matter if these are religious beliefs or not, these listed examples are all entirely irrational and I would trust that the vetting process would consider that, especially for a supreme court justice.
I didn't ignore it. You have asked about these issues multiple times and I have answered them the same way every time.
This passive aggressive method you have of calling people liars is cowardly and insulting. It does nothing for your argument but hurt it. Resorting to this kind of personal attack introduces a toxic element into the discussion and you should know better.
I have an opinion about what you wrote, and I am entitled to that opinion. Misrepresentation is lying, and I have not done that.
And yet, you are talking about someone's religious beliefs, so your attempt at a distinction is meaningless.
However you think you want to parse or define someone's beliefs, if you want respect for rational decision-making, you should be able to demonstrate how this candidate's beliefs have produced problematic judicial results. If there is anything irrational going on here, it is your insistence that something about this woman's beliefs might make her a bad choice to be on the Supreme Court. Simply saying it's "clear" isn't enough.
You keep ignoring my list:
If a candidate held ALL of the above, would you (if you were in a position to do so) actually vote for such a candidate to be a justice of the SCotUS?
Nothing passive about it; I am being quite candid. You made a blatantly dishonest claim. No way you could not know that my objection is due to irrationality and not religion. To ignore my comments and then declare my position to be one based on religious grounds is blatant intellectual dishonesty.
You can have any opinion you want, but you have claimed that I objected on religious grounds. Demonstrably false. I have told you my objection is due to irrationality and have provided very clear examples to illustrate my thought process. Stating I object on religious grounds is a complete misrepresentation of what I have written. Perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.
So weigh in. If the candidate held ALL of the above irrational beliefs (in red) would you (if you were in a position to do so) vote for such a candidate to be a justice of the SCotUS?
This is simply stating that a persons religion itself should not be used as a test of ones eligibility. As for the beliefs a person may have based on their religion they are certainly acceptable to debate as to the nominees eligibility.
If a judge, during the vetting, admits that they believe biblical law should supersede the US constitution, then they should be immediately rejected as their oath demands.
"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
If they admit that the bible takes precedence over the constitution then their oath would be a total lie.
What if we have a potential justice whose religious beliefs are that whites are superior and should be treated as such?
What if we have a potential justice whose religious beliefs are that blacks are cursed by God and are the "sons of Cain" and thus should be treated as servants or slaves?
What if we have a potential justice whose religious beliefs are that the death penalty should be used for any offense the bible deems a sin such as eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics?
What if we have a potential justice whose religious beliefs are that disobedient children should be stoned to death?
What if we have a potential justice whose religious beliefs are that women are inferior to men or that a husband has the right to hit or rape their wives?
What if we have a potential justice whose religious beliefs are that women should be forced to wear a hijab and long dresses?
Taking all of those beliefs into consideration when making the decision to confirm a justice is absolutely necessary, it just doesn't matter what religion they subscribe to.
So the nominee can be atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any other religion, that shouldn't matter. It's whether their beliefs based on that religion would supersede or conflict with the constitution that should be examined and questioned. As long as they promise to follow the constitution and realize they're being asked to judge all kinds of peoples from all kinds of religions and backgrounds and that it would be inappropriate to force their personal beliefs on others through the courts, then there shouldn't be a problem.
Your list is not relevant. This has been explained to you over and over.
No, you know you are calling people liars. That is supposed to be against CoC (not to mention simple good manners), but you hide it behind euphemisms like “intellectual dishonesty” and “misrepresentation” so you get away with it. You could just agree to disagree, but instead you have to attack the character of people who disagree with you. And now I anticipate you will whine about meta rather than address the substance of the criticism.
Furthermore, you continue to ignore these points, which have been put to you repeatedly by me and others:
1) You are talking about someone's religious beliefs, so your attempt at a distinction is meaningless.
2) You should be able to demonstrate how this candidate's beliefs have produced problematic judicial results.
Until you can address these issues, you are just trying to justify discrimination and character assassination.
Yeah, I understand why you refuse to answer the question.
Wrong. If you make an intellectually dishonest statement — especially one that is blatantly so — I will call you out on it. There is a clear difference between noting demonstrable and blatant intellectual dishonesty and calling someone a liar.
When I state repeatedly that my comment is regarding irrational beliefs regardless of whether these are religious or not and you come back and claim that I object on religious grounds (and then deem me hypocritical) then that is complete misrepresentation of what I have written. And since what I have written is so obvious at this point, there is no way you could have missed it.
False yet again. You are just ignoring my answer. As you are ignoring my question:
If the candidate held ALL of these irrational beliefs:
... would you (if you were in a position to do so) vote for such a candidate to be a justice of the SCotUS?
I agree. Clearly.
If someone holds an irrational belief, be it religious or otherwise, that factor is certainly valid for consideration by those who would vet and by those who would confirm a justice for the SCotUS.
It is fascinating watching this intellectually dishonest display taking place in this thread. Some ignore what is written and go pure strawman. No matter how many times they are corrected, they continue to pretend they know my position better than I do.
And, of course, every probative question is ignored as 'irrelevant'. Sure, if truth is not the objective, dismiss that which illustrates one is wrong.
No, I did answer it. You just don't like the answer. For the umpteenth time, your list is not relevant to an evaluation of a Supreme Court justice. I have answered this over and over and over. Maybe if I accuse you of some kind of dishonesty, you'll come around to understanding it.
Well then! If it's "clear" I guess I have no business having an opposing opinion. I don't suppose you'd care to explain the difference?
Then maybe it's time you declare and admit that you are changing the subject or moving the goalposts. Because this whole seed and the related exchange began with a discussion of Amy Coney Barrett's religious beliefs and how they made her unfit to be a justice. Are you saying you no longer want to talk about her and her beliefs?
Maybe it is time that you read what I wrote upfront. My subsequent comments have been entirely consistent with what I wrote here:
And the rest of the thread consists of intellectually dishonest claims that I favor a religious test for the SCotUS and other invented nonsense coupled with the typical deflection tactics of those who are just trying to be obnoxious.
Nowhere do I suggest a religious test, ever. In fact, I have never suggested a religious test for any office or position. Do you know how I know this? Because I have never held that position. A religious test is unconstitutional, irrelevant, impractical and I see no way it could even be produced in an objective fashion.
But I certainly would be in favor of disqualifying a candidate who holds grossly irrational views. Such as:
Unlike you who apparently would vote for a candidate who holds ALL of the above views, I want a candidate who will operate rationally and holding a view that aliens are possessing human bodies brings into heavy doubt the rationality of the individual.
So I guess you missed the part @7.1.9 where I explain to you that I am not in favor of religious tests.
Nothing TiG said was a "religious test".
I would be fine with a Muslim justice, but I'd want to make sure that they did not believe that the Koran supersedes the constitution. I would oppose them if they openly admitted that their faith was more important than established law and that when ruling on laws they would always side with their Muslim beliefs. That is not a religious test, I don't care that they are Muslim as long as they can separate their personal faith and follow the constitution in their rulings instead of their religious belief that Christians are infidels and there shouldn't be laws against murdering them.
"Religious test" simply means your brand of faith should not matter when it comes to confirmation, it doesn't mean that those vetting them can't ask specific policy questions that touch on religious beliefs such as abortion, the death penalty, racial supremacy, spousal rape, religious freedom, wife beaters, child abuse and more. If they hold an irrational belief like disobedient children should be stoned to death or that spousal rape is okay because the husband is the head of the household, then there should be no problem blocking such a nominee based on those irrational beliefs.
This isn't hard to understand, but you seem to have chosen to be intentionally obtuse on this point.
If the ideal is equality, caveats ain't allowed.
Then your ‘jibe’ is broken.
Would you vote for a justice candidate who believed everything on the list I provided?
Now that I believe. No way could you not understand my position after my upfront reply to you @7.1.9. That means your comments claiming I am for a religious test are blatant, demonstrated falsehoods.
I doubt that there will ever be a justice candidate that believes everything on the list you provided. Are you suggesting that the perception of someone's beliefs carries more weight than their actions?
Well of course nobody (well maybe some) would believe all that nonsense. Again, I made an extreme list to make a point.
Would you (if you were in a position to do so) vote for a candidate who held ALL those beliefs?
If she were the best, most qualified judge available, but I would have to be a bigoted asshole not to vote for her.
You think that issue is going to come up a lot in court, do you?
Okay, you would vote for a candidate for SCotUS who held ALL of these irrational beliefs:
... as long as you (somehow, inexplicably) conclude that the candidate is the best qualified judge available.
Now that is truly remarkable.
Here is my view. Believing everything on the above list would disqualify the candidate from consideration for the SCotUS. I would vote for an inexperienced candidate who had normal rational beliefs (let's pick a Catholic Bishop for example to push the religious question) over an otherwise qualified candidate who held extreme irrational beliefs such as those on my list.
Of course not. It was an extreme hypothetical. An absurd scenario just to see how far you would go before admitting that there are beliefs held by a candidate that would categorically eliminate them from consideration.
The only way extreme beliefs would cause me to disqualify someone would be if those beliefs had something to do with the law. You want to disqualify a person based on unrelated issues you personally judge in the negative. That is a terrible way to hire anyone for anything.
So you do not consider:
... to have something to do with the law?? Would you want a justice weighing in on abortion who holds that a particular man (e.g. husband) should decide if an abortion is allowed for a woman (e.g. his wife)?
Very strange view you have.
Also, do you think the SCotUS only deals with the law? Certainly you understand that the SCotUS adjudicates complex scenarios that deal with myriad facets which manifest in society and these scenarios often involve a rational understanding of the natural world and of human nature. Thus we have the following irrational beliefs as relevant too:
If a case dealing with the natural world were to reach the SCotUS, I would hope that none of the justices would be mentally capable of holding any of the above extremely irrational beliefs. And, specific to this thread and with a far less extreme example, I would hope that none of the justices irrationally believe that glossolalia is true ... that Pat Boone is actually extemporaneously speaking a spiritually-gifted language here:
and especially by sleazebags like Tilton: