Can a Catholic be a Supreme Court Justice and be faithful to both one's faith and the Constitution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EchoCQ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
And she said as much in her acceptance speech a few hours ago.
Click to expand...
Scalia said the same thing when he was a guest speaker at my law school. Someone asked him how his Catholicism influenced his rulings, and he shrugged and said “hopefully not at all.”
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Most women achievers in USA can’t wrap their minds around how a woman can be both highly accomplished and religious and pro-life.
Click to expand...
This.
Pro-life high achieving women don’t exist in the minds of liberals, so when they see one, it massively confuses them.

Besides, everybody holds a set of beliefs. Everybody worships. Everybody has likes and dislikes.
 
I am sure she will be under scrutiny for a while, second-guessed and criticized by both sides. But it is her conscience, not anyone else’s she will need to answer to.
 
He sure didn’t take a Catholic view of criminal justice or capital punishment in my opinion. He was still a great Justice though and the most memorable opinion writer of recent decades, again in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
I am sure she will be under scrutiny for a while, second-guessed and criticized by both sides.
Click to expand...
That’s the beauty of a lifetime appointment. She’s insulated from partisan pressure or the need to please a boss. People can scrutinize her all day. Unless she commits an actual crime, she can just be like 👋
 
kainosktisis said:
Is this same question asked of others who hold public office?
Click to expand...
It came up for male Presidents during the Al Smith and JFK campaigns. Once JFK became President and in the eyes of the world at that time, did a decent job, and the country didn’t implode, it ceased to become a credible issue to bring up.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
According to her speech, she will not be taking this, or any other Catholic beliefs into account.

“It is the job of a Senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. ”
Click to expand...
A good speech. Impressive. But the part above puzzled me. What did she mean by it? Why would she have to resist policy preferences? Shouldn’t she simply be ruling on the constitutionality of whatever the policies are (should that be required)?

Edit: Ah, I think maybe she meant resisting her own policy preferences. That would make sense in the.context of the speech. The speech could have used an editor there to correct for clarity.
 
Last edited:
Someone who believes in the strict constructionist school of interpretation is probably going to reject appeals to natural law as a judge.
 
Freddy said:
A good speech. Impressive. But the part above puzzled me. What did she mean by it? Why would she have to resist policy preferences? Shouldn’t she simply be ruling on the constitutionality of whatever the policies are (should that be required)?
Click to expand...
I think that’s exactly what she’s saying. Everyone has policy preferences. We all have opinions on whether x or y is a good law. She’s saying she’s going to put aside her opinions about whether the law is good or bad and just focus on the constitutionality. Entirely appropriate.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
40.png
Freddy:
A good speech. Impressive. But the part above puzzled me. What did she mean by it? Why would she have to resist policy preferences? Shouldn’t she simply be ruling on the constitutionality of whatever the policies are (should that be required)?
Click to expand...
I think that’s exactly what she’s saying. Everyone has policy preferences. We all have opinions on whether x or y is a good law. She’s saying she’s going to put aside her opinions about whether the law is good or bad and just focus on the constitutionality. Entirely appropriate.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I think I misread it. When she said ‘resist her policies’ she meant effectively to resist her personal policies. Not those of a senator. Maybe should have said ‘resist her own policies’.
 
Last edited:
The problem here is that it works both ways…the other side can give the same signal as they do things which are extreme. I tend to think power tends to corrupt over time. Even good people can be changed by decades of no accountability
 
It’s a myth that SCt Justices have no accountability. The bar at that level is very self-policing.
People not involved with it, don’t hear about it.

There are also very good reasons for having a lifetime appointed judiciary. Exhibit A is the number of corrupt elected state judges, whose corruption often ends up having to be sorted by the federal courts.
 
RolandThompsonGunner said:
Someone who believes in the strict constructionist school of interpretation is probably going to reject appeals to natural law as a judge.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don’t see Barrett doing this–but a supreme court judge could and has (the classic example being Justice Chase’s opinion in Calder v. Bull). Plus, since Obergefell, there is now precedent to use dignity alone as the basis of an opinion. Abortion could be struck down on both those grounds–why not use the means Providence has given?

But, republicans tend to appoint procedural liberals, while democrats appoint more substantive liberals, which is why the former are often disappointed, while the latter never are.
 
Last edited:
What I am getting at is, other judges at the level of the affected judge tend to step in and do what they can to control a member who might bring a negative image to the Court.

They have a little chat over lunch, that sort of thing.

Or a couple of them will get together and come up with some other strategy.
 
Last edited:
Hmm interesting ok. So a bit of professional colleague interaction and accountability. Interesting I’ll have to give that one some thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top