PDA

View Full Version : Trump's Sharia Judge



Ian McColgin
07-26-2017, 10:35 AM
[IMc - This is the longest vacant spot - Held vacant all these years by Republican refusal to even consider Obama nominees. So here comes Trump promoting an open advocate of the christian version of the right wing's fear about Sharia law. We actually have lots of places in our society where people choose to follow the "law" of their religion. Roman Catholics might follow their church's teachings regarding marriage but if they don't, they can go to civil court for a divorce. Anyone can go to a kosher deli but you've no right to demand a ham and cheese on rye. All fine. But a judge's oath is about the law, not about god. It's fine by me to have deep religious convictions that the death penalty is wrong, I'm totally against the death penalty myself, but a judge who is anti-death penalty cannot in conscience preside over a death penalty case. Other offices have different duties. For example, there are governors who determined that the death penalty is hopelessly racist in execution and have refused to sign death warrants. There have been anti-death prosecutors who simply don't seek that penalty. All fine and within their office's discretion. But a judge does not have the authority to simply ignore a law on his or her personal religious peccadillo. As the article notes, this candidate, besides her openly declared religious prejudices, is also unqualified for the job due to her lack of actual court experience. So I favor consideration of this nominee - consideration that should enumerate all the reasons the Senate must reject her.]

Group asks Trump to withdraw Wisconsin judicial nominee who says Bible precedes the Constitution

By Louis Weisberg, Staff writer Jul 23, 2017 Updated Jul 24, 2017

A legal watchdog group is calling on the Trump administration to withdraw its nominee for a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The Alliance for Justice contends that Amy Coney Barrett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, is unsuitable for the bench due to her belief that the Bible can precede U.S. law.

Barrett has never held a judicial position and has very little litigation experience.

“Amy Coney Barrett is a judicial nominee the likes of which we have rarely seen: a person who believes and has stated that judges can and should put their personal beliefs ahead of the law and Constitution when carrying out their duties, AFJ president Nan Aron said in a prepared statement. “Specifically, Barrett has written that judges should put their religious faith ahead of the law (emphasis by AFJ) in certain cases. She also has written that judges should not have to abide by precedent if they disagree with how past cases were decided. These views are so contrary to our system of democracy and justice that, in our view, they clearly disqualify her for the federal bench.”

For instance, Barrett has made “incredibly troubling remarks about when there a conflict between her religious beliefs and the law, the law comes second,” said AFJ legal director Dan Goldberg “She has questioned Roe v Wade, and she has said that legal precedent is irrelevant.”

Indeed, Barrett criticized Justice William Brennan for putting the Constitution above his Catholic faith. In a legal article titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” she condemned Brennan for writing, “There isn’t any obligation of our faith superior” to that (judicial) oath.

On the contrary, Barrett wrote: “We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty.”

Her critique is tantamount to relegating the Constitution as secondary to the Vatican’s authority for Roman Catholic judges

AFJ is a national association of over 100 organizations committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society, Goldberg said. AFJ conducts extensive research on judicial nominees as part of its effort to protect hard-won legal gains in such areas as environmental sustainability and civil rights for women, minorities and LGBT citizens.

AFJ contends that Barrett is not an outlier but rather a perfect fit for Trump’s emerging mold for the federal judiciary — “ideologically ultraconservative; hostile to environmental protection and the rights of workers, people of color, LGBTQ Americans, and women,” the organization said.

Growing partisanship

The Seventh Circuit, which is known in legal circles as a moderate court, has three vacancies on its 11-member panel. Goldberg said the vacancies reflect Republicans’ success at delivering on their vow to halt as many of former President Barack Obama’s nominees as possible.

The Wisconsin judicial position has been vacant longer than any other in the nation.

The Trump administration appears to be going in an even more partisan direction on judicial selections.

“There’s been a longstanding bipartisan commission that makes (judicial) recommendations to the senators, who then make recommendations to the president,” Goldberg said. Wisconsin Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson forged a new bipartisan agreement over filling major vacancies for federal judge and U.S. Attorney earlier this year.

But there is a question of whether the (Trump) White House will bypass that bipartisan commission, he added.

“Trump’s nominees are not run-of-the-mill nominees,” Goldberg warned. “Many of them hold radical point of views, and many of them would not be nominated in a normal administration or during normal times.”

Ninety-nine percent of federal cases don’t make it to the Supreme Court, which hears only about 80 cases per year. “So for the millions of people in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, the last word on everything from environmental to labor laws is the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,” Goldberg said. “At question here is a lifelong seat that will influence people and their children for the next generation.”

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/news/group-asks-trump-to-withdraw-wisconsin-judicial-nominee-who-says/article_edb9c39a-6ff6-11e7-8fb7-5f13d109a205.html

Peerie Maa
07-26-2017, 11:29 AM
For this person to even be in the frame suggests that the US is sliding down the slippery slope towards being totally screwed.

The results of the Great Experiment are in. . . . Bigly Fail.

Vince Brennan
07-26-2017, 11:58 AM
More adventures in Oompa-Loompa Land

elf
07-26-2017, 12:00 PM
Amazing. the headline writer's grasp of English is really poor. the word is supercedes.

No wonder we have people like Coney Barrett being nominated for positions of such importance.

birlinn
07-26-2017, 01:47 PM
Amazing. the headline writer's grasp of English is really poor. the word is supercedes.

No wonder we have people like Coney Barrett being nominated for positions of such importance.

A pedant replies:
The word is actually supersedes.
In English English anyway.

CWSmith
07-26-2017, 04:49 PM
His very statement makes him unfit to be a lawyer. How can he possibly be a judge?

oznabrag
07-26-2017, 04:57 PM
The Republican Party are traitors.

They have purposefully, and with malice aforethought, wrought the crippling and near destruction of the Judicial Branch in the service of their own selfish agenda.

We really need to start telling it like it is, people.

The Republican Party is a criminal enterprise bent on the destruction of our Constitution, and the installation of rule by rich, old, white, dominionist men.

They deserve no respect and no quarter, and to be prosecuted, convicted and executed.

Peerie Maa
07-26-2017, 05:00 PM
Amy Coney Barrett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, is unsuitable for the bench due to her belief that the Bible can precede U.S. law.Must have absolutely bomb proof tenure, 'cos I would not employ her to teach law.

oznabrag
07-26-2017, 05:12 PM
Must have absolutely bomb proof tenure, 'cos I would not employ her to teach law.
I wouldn't hire her to clean the bathroom.

PeterSibley
07-26-2017, 05:14 PM
This is going to have an interesting effect on farming in the USA and the clothing / fashion industry. "You are duly charged with wearing a cotton / polyester shirt. How do you plead ?"

Leviticus 19:19 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A19&version=ESV)

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

mdh
07-26-2017, 05:35 PM
Elena Kagan wasn't a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court, and many disagree with her views.

Glen Longino
07-26-2017, 05:42 PM
Elena Kagan wasn't a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court, and many disagree with her views.

Yes, many Troglodytes disagree with her views.!

Peerie Maa
07-26-2017, 05:42 PM
Elena Kagan wasn't a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court, and many disagree with her views.

So, is there any evidence that Kagan would overturn the provisions of the Constitution that the SCOTUS is intended to uphold?

CWSmith
07-26-2017, 05:43 PM
Elena Kagan wasn't a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court, and many disagree with her views.

Irrelevant. She is highly qualified.


After attending Princeton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University), Oxford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University), and Harvard Law School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School), she completed federal Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships. She began her career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago_Law_School), leaving to serve as Associate White House Counsel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Counsel), and later as policy adviser, under President (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_President) Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton). After a nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_D.C._Circui t), which expired without action, she became a professor at Harvard Law School (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School) and was later named its first female dean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_%28education%29). In 2009, Kagan became the first female Solicitor General (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan

Chris Smith porter maine
07-26-2017, 05:51 PM
Thanks CW you will do.

Norman Bernstein
07-26-2017, 05:58 PM
Elena Kagan wasn't a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court, and many disagree with her views.

This judges' views transcend mere 'disagreement'.....

....unless you actually think that her own religious view supercedes the Constitution.

Well.... do ya?

mdh
07-26-2017, 10:51 PM
This judges' views transcend mere 'disagreement'.....

....unless you actually think that her own religious view supercedes the Constitution.

Well.... do ya?

When did you start believing judges decided cases based on the constitution? If they do, how do we get split decisions?

Peerie Maa
07-27-2017, 07:06 AM
When did you start believing judges decided cases based on the constitution? If they do, how do we get split decisions?

OK, a commission for you. Find and quote a dissenting opinion that argues against the provisions of the constitution.

Ian McColgin
07-27-2017, 07:18 AM
mdh has an incredibly naive view of law. There are legitimate differences as to what a law actually means, with the procedural routes to enforcement, and the very legitimacy or constitutionality of the law. Law is about 10% black letter and even that is in context with the whole of the law, not just that clause, and it's 90% how cases are decided.

Intelligent and honest people have disagreements on these points all the time.

Keith Wilson
07-27-2017, 07:50 AM
Parody has become impossible.