Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
It’s Barrett....(Democrat Hysteria Game Thread)
Comments
-
Paul Ryan is CatholicSledog said:
Raised Catholic. Mother Italian Catholic. Dad converted. Grandmother (dad's side) converted. Of course all the WOPS are Catholic. Some of the Hillbillies. Not a damn thing wrong with Catholics! Nothing to fear. The left hates religion because religion gets in the way of people worshiping politics. Of course if they get their communist utopia there will be no religion. Banned. Only the state.creepycoug said:
Honestly I can't without going and looking for it. Sounds like Barrett has a more distinct track record on those issues, which I would expect as a disciple of Scalia.Houhusky said:@creepycoug can you link to any important Lagoa decisions specifically regarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or her general view on constitutional jurisprudence?
The only thing I saw that might indicate she would have what Trump supporters or Republicans would desire is she didn't recuse herself when democrats asked her and upheld the ruling that required re-enfranchised felons to pay all financial obligations before being allowed to vote.
Seems kind of thin... idk
That said, I had never heard of either of them before this nomination round. I had heard of Kavanaugh before his appointment, probably because he was on the DC Circuit COA and I'd heard of Gorsuch before he was appointed but I don't recall in what context.
I know next to nothing about Lagoa other than her bio. Desantis is a pretty conservative guy so she'd have had to have passed his test before apppointing her to the FSC. I guess one other knock on her is that she's only been on the federal COA for a short tim, and that credential is probably more powerful than state supreme court experience for a SCTOUS appointment. And her Fla. SC stint was also short-lived. So she doesn't have a long track record on the bench.
OTOH, she was in private practice and spent time as a federal prosecutor.
OTOH, she wasn't a law clerk at the SCOTUS, which is a credential a lot of appointees have and Barrett has that.
OTOH, she's a Federalist Society chicka, so you know she has the textualist and originalist goods.
IDK, looks like he made the right choice and it's not like he's going to lose Florida for passing on Lagoa or anything.
I really have no dog in this hunt, except that my irrational fears about people who spend too much time looking at the sky for answers is well documented here in the Tug, and so irrationally I'd prefer to have somebody on the court who is conservative but who doesn't look for reasons to bring it to work. Barrett seems a little more religiously kooky, but then again, don't ever underestimate a Cuban woman's Catholicism. They bring that shit hard and heavy in Hialeah. Trust me; I know.
I find that I like looking at Barrett. So there's that.
His mistake was getting a hs job at McDonalds rather than the Family heavy construction business -
100%Swaye said:Unless Romney and some other loser we don't know about yet flip, this is all political theatre at this point. She will be seated. No amount of liberal grandstanding or hand wringing will change that.
-
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary. -
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case. -
Did Ginsburg ever rule against the ACLU on SCOTUS? She never recused herself from any case involving the group that she led for years.creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Kagan did not herself from the landmark ObamaCare case that she had argued in favor of as Solicitor General. It was a 5-4 decision.
I’m curious because these calls for recusal seem completely biased and random. -
You mean the calls for recusal that Amy Barrett herself wrote about with the dean of BC law school? Take it up with her Duck. I'm too busy filling my corporate lawyer "briefs" with filler information to try and reach her.NorthwestFresh said:
Did Ginsburg ever rule against the ACLU on SCOTUS? She never recused herself from any case involving the group that she led for years.creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Kagan did not herself from the landmark ObamaCare case that she had argued in favor of as Solicitor General. It was a 5-4 decision.
I’m curious because these calls for recusal seem completely biased and random.
But, yeah, civil liberties, healthcare are just different religions. Sure. Sounds right. -
Im willing to bet that is a lazy reference to this article from 2019; https://humanevents.com/2019/09/19/amy-coney-barrett-is-not-a-safe-pick-for-the-supreme-court/creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Zmirak there claimed Barrett argued that trial judges who are faithful to Catholic teaching “are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty” and should therefore recuse themselves from cases in which they might be required to do so. Zmirak extravagantly extrapolates from the 1998 article that Barrett as a Supreme Court justice might recuse herself from cases involving capital punishment, immigration, and abortion. (In reference to an old paper she help author in law school)
Barrett addressed religious recusal and that 1998 opinion in her 2017 hearing;
"I wrote that law review article when I was a third-year law student with one of my professors 20 years ago. It was a project that he had underway, and he invited me to work on it with him, and I was complimented that as a student he thought I was up to the task of being more than a research assistant. But I was very much the junior partner in our collaboration, and that was appropriate given our relative statures."
"Would I or could I say, sitting here today, that that article and its every particular reflects how I think about these questions today with, as you say, the benefit of 20 years of experience and also the ability to speak solely in my own voice? No, it would not."
Barrett then stated that “sitting here today, I cannot think of any cases or category of cases in which I would feel obliged to recuse on grounds of conscience.”
She also directly addressed your specific concern on a line between legal judgement and faith;
"It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law. If there is ever a conflict between a judge’s personal conviction and that judge’s duty under the rule of law, it is never, ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case rather than what the law requires. I totally reject and I have rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that, as you say, the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome.
Were I confirmed, as a judge I would decide cases according to the rule of law, beginning to end."
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/attack-on-judge-amy-coney-barrett-completely-misfires/
-
I’m agnostic and believe that liberalism is a secular cult that impacts judges’ decisions. The judiciary is just as political as the other two branches of the federal govt.creepycoug said:
You mean the calls for recusal that Amy Barrett herself wrote about with the dean of BC law school? Take it up with her Duck. I'm too busy filling my corporate lawyer "briefs" with filler information to try and reach her.NorthwestFresh said:
Did Ginsburg ever rule against the ACLU on SCOTUS? She never recused herself from any case involving the group that she led for years.creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Kagan did not herself from the landmark ObamaCare case that she had argued in favor of as Solicitor General. It was a 5-4 decision.
I’m curious because these calls for recusal seem completely biased and random.
But, yeah, civil liberties, healthcare are just different religions. Sure. Sounds right.
What are you talking about? You seem suspicious and very bigoted against religious cultists, yet accepting of secular cultists. Odd flex and extremely hypocritical.
You didn’t answer my question in your diatribe either. -
Yes, my religious bigotry is well documented here. Doesn't seem odd to me at all. Do you have a point other than the obvious?NorthwestFresh said:
I’m agnostic and believe that liberalism is a secular cult that impacts judges’ decisions. The judiciary is just as political as the other two branches of the federal govt.creepycoug said:
You mean the calls for recusal that Amy Barrett herself wrote about with the dean of BC law school? Take it up with her Duck. I'm too busy filling my corporate lawyer "briefs" with filler information to try and reach her.NorthwestFresh said:
Did Ginsburg ever rule against the ACLU on SCOTUS? She never recused herself from any case involving the group that she led for years.creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Kagan did not herself from the landmark ObamaCare case that she had argued in favor of as Solicitor General. It was a 5-4 decision.
I’m curious because these calls for recusal seem completely biased and random.
But, yeah, civil liberties, healthcare are just different religions. Sure. Sounds right.
What are you talking about? You seem suspicious and very bigoted against religious cultists, yet accepting of secular cultists. Odd flex and extremely hypocritical.
You didn’t answer my question in your diatribe either.
You mean your question about case dispositions that you are free to look up yourself? Again, this is Washington; we pump our own gas here Duck.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my big-time corporate lawyer job and write some fluffy briefs. -
Sounds like she backed off an old law review article. Certainly not the first time a candidate for the federal bench has had to do that. I'm sure we'd all agree that's there no point in going back that far in anyone's legal career, no matter how much we liked or disliked them.Houhusky said:
Im willing to bet that is a lazy reference to this article from 2019; https://humanevents.com/2019/09/19/amy-coney-barrett-is-not-a-safe-pick-for-the-supreme-court/creepycoug said:
Totally fair. I think on some level it is inescapable to at least apply old text into the contemporary world or we would have absurd results or we'd be amending the constitution all the time. Maybe the latter is what should happen over 9 people winging it on their own.Houhusky said:
Just say you want a strict textualist (or originalist?) not someone who will read their own opinion into the law. Non-coincidentally that is what the vast majority of those on the right would like.creepycoug said:
I have no problem with anyone being a practicing Catholic or other organized anything. And I agree: all of those things you lampoon in the extreme can wander over the line into religious fervor. That said, those secular things are secular things. There's a reason we? decided to keep the religious out of the secular.WestlinnDuck said:So Barrett is a practicing Catholic. That is no different from being a practicing atheist who hates organized religion. Or being a practicing environmentalist. Or a practicing feminist. Everyone has their own morality. The difference is that a practicing feminist has to make sh*t up out of whole cloth and come up with "emanations" and "penumbras" to come up with a super Constitutional right to unlimited abortion. A practicing environmentalist has to come up with some serious sh*t to define a pond in some farmers backyard as a "navigable waterway". A practicing atheist has to make sh*t up to require a baker to bake a flaming gay wedding cake.
We've had LONG discussions in the past here in the Tug about where to draw that line, and I'm not about to relitigate. Probably because I'm scared of FACTs and worried that my feelings will be hurt and I won't be able to emote my way out of a corner. I think it suffices to say that you like Barrett because she's going to follow Scalia on a handful of issues that are of importance to you. And on that score, your preference is perfectly rational. I myself like people who can keep a nice clear line between their personal spiritual beliefs and secular matters. She may in fact turn out to be one of those people.
In total, a discussion about Barrett's religion given her stance on Scalia's textualism seems rather unnecessary.
I just got off the phone with a colleague, who got her JD at Boston College. The dean at the time, and a Con Law professor, apparently wrote a piece with Barrett some time ago suggesting that judges recuse themselves when a case presents a religious dilemma for a presiding judge. She's been criticized for that, but maybe that's the best answer. I, myself, would be able to compartmentalize whatever spirituality I had with what I thought the law required. But if you can't, then don't decide the case.
Zmirak there claimed Barrett argued that trial judges who are faithful to Catholic teaching “are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty” and should therefore recuse themselves from cases in which they might be required to do so. Zmirak extravagantly extrapolates from the 1998 article that Barrett as a Supreme Court justice might recuse herself from cases involving capital punishment, immigration, and abortion. (In reference to an old paper she help author in law school)
Barrett addressed religious recusal and that 1998 opinion in her 2017 hearing;
"I wrote that law review article when I was a third-year law student with one of my professors 20 years ago. It was a project that he had underway, and he invited me to work on it with him, and I was complimented that as a student he thought I was up to the task of being more than a research assistant. But I was very much the junior partner in our collaboration, and that was appropriate given our relative statures."
"Would I or could I say, sitting here today, that that article and its every particular reflects how I think about these questions today with, as you say, the benefit of 20 years of experience and also the ability to speak solely in my own voice? No, it would not."
Barrett then stated that “sitting here today, I cannot think of any cases or category of cases in which I would feel obliged to recuse on grounds of conscience.”
She also directly addressed your specific concern on a line between legal judgement and faith;
"It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law. If there is ever a conflict between a judge’s personal conviction and that judge’s duty under the rule of law, it is never, ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case rather than what the law requires. I totally reject and I have rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that, as you say, the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome.
Were I confirmed, as a judge I would decide cases according to the rule of law, beginning to end."
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/attack-on-judge-amy-coney-barrett-completely-misfires/
Sounds like she's saying the right things now.
I'm sure she'll be a fine Justice of the SCOTUS.
