Ruth Bader “Boozin’ ‘N’ Snoozin’” Ginsburg may seem like she attended law school with Moses, but in reality she’ll be turning 86 this March.
With that said, it’s a fair bet that RBG will be the next one to create an opening for a seat on the Supreme Court, either by resignation or the biological solution.
So it’s actually quite a timely moment to discuss just who might replace Ginsburg, and that person is the same one who came within a hairsbreadth of being named instead of Brett Kavanaugh. Namely, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
While the Democrats have quite the penchant with accusing (without evidence) Justice Brett Kavanaugh of being a drunken gang rapist, it’s unlikely that the same accusations could be leveled at Barrett. But when it comes to Democrats… who knows?
Other than being a former law professor at the University of Notre Dame, George Washington University and the University of Virginia, she’s currently a judge with the Seventh Circuit Court.
But what really raised eyebrows regarding Her Honor were some of the questions and comments fired at her during her Senate Judicial Committee confirmation hearings by two Democrat heavyweights.
As reported by The American Spectator (emphasis mine);
Barrett is a married pro-life Catholic with seven children. She and her husband adopted two of those children who are black. They have another child who has special needs. She is a truly admirable person.
But, in 2017 when President Trump nominated Barrett to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, she was attacked by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead of exploring Barrett’s impressive qualifications, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) grilled the nominee about the depth of her Catholic faith. Acting as ex officio arbiters in matters of faith and morals, Feinstein and Durbin set out to determine whether the nominee was perhaps too devoutly Catholic to be trusted with a judgeship.
Unsatisfied with this endorsement of the primacy of law over religion, Durbin probed the depths of Barrett’s faith, going so far as to ask, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”
Not to be outdone, Feinstein concluded her questioning by telling Barrett, “the [Catholic] dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
As The American Spectator also noted, the Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee “focused on a law review article Barrett coauthored when she was a student that discussed what should be done if a Catholic judge’s religion conflicted with his duty to follow established death penalty law. It concluded that ‘[t]he legal system has a solution for this dilemma — it allows (indeed it requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job.’”
It really is quite simple – if any given judge finds him or herself presiding over a case that flies in the face of their inner-most moral beliefs (religious or otherwise), that same judge should recuse themselves, period. Keep in mind, she wrote that opinion as a student.
In all fairness, nowhere in Catholic dogma is there any prohibition upon pain of sin in relation to any given individual’s adherence to the use of the death penalty as per 2,000 years of Catholic teaching.
But back to the Dems attack on Judge Barrett, obviously none of these yahoos are familiar with Clause 3, of Article VI of the United States Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
But, c’mon. We all know that the Jackass Party will result to gutter politics when it comes to Judge Barrett or anyone else President Trump nominates for any court, even the Supreme Court.