Trump nominates Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court.

[essentialsaltes]

IANAL or a legal scholar, but the most interesting thing I've seen so far about her views is this, written by her with a coauthor.

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.

From the conclusion: Judges cannot -- nor should they try to -- align our legal system with the Church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge.

They argue that it is possible for a judge's religious beliefs to conflict with their oath of office, and in such cases they should recuse themselves. I guess I would ask if she still holds this opinion, and whether she would recuse herself if she were religiously conflicted about a case.

 

[Vylo]

If he's truly smart, Trump will tell McConnell in private to delay the vote on Barrett until after the election, and then use it to publicly scream about, to rile up his base to vote. Having the vote before the election means it could get shot down by vulnerable republicans, and motivate democratic voters. Having after allows those republicans to cover themselves and perhaps stay in office, and would motive republican voters.

 

[wing2000]

If he's truly smart, Trump will tell McConnell in private to delay the vote on Barrett until after the election, and then use it to publicly scream about, to rile up his base to vote. Having the vote before the election means it could get shot down by vulnerable republicans, and motivate democratic voters. Having after allows those republicans to cover themselves and perhaps stay in office, and would motive republican voters.

...or here's another political consideration:

It the USSC vacant seat is filled by Judge Barrett prior to the election, why should the social conservatives continue holding their nose to vote for Trump? They'll have their decades long objective met - a conservative majority on the USSC.

 

[Pommer]

...or here's another political consideration:

It the USSC vacant seat is filled by Judge Barrett prior to the election, why should the social conservatives continue holding their nose to vote for Trump? They'll have their decades long objective met - a conservative majority on the USSC.

Are you suggesting that once the solid 6-3 Conservative bloc is on SCOTUS, Republicans can safely ditch the President?

 

[Nithavela]

Are you suggesting that once the solid 6-3 Conservative bloc is on SCOTUS, Republicans can safely ditch the President?

No, they still need to keep the president to prevent the democrats to stack the court in their favour.

 

[cow451]

Barrett is a done deal. She has apparently been someone her peers respect, even when they disagree. And, if she is who she appears to be, she won't vote to upend established precedents. My prediction is, down the road, she will be another disappointment to the Right because she will drift toward the center, as most seem to do.

And, since she has not been a party girl or spoiled brat, she simply doesn't have any skeletons to come out during hearings. Since the Democrats don't have the votes, they should grill her on her legal background and rulings and avoid anything resembling an attack on her as a person, knowing she is going to get confirmed anyway.

 

[wing2000]

Are you suggesting that once the solid 6-3 Conservative bloc is on SCOTUS, Republicans can safely ditch the President?

Some conservative voters may view it that way. I know a lot of my relatives imply they are voting for Trump based on one issue: a conservative USSC.