"The dogma lives loudly within you" — Dianne Feinstein's amazing challenge to 7th Circuit nominee Amy Coney Barrett. - Hallo friendsINFO TODAY, In the article you read this time with the title "The dogma lives loudly within you" — Dianne Feinstein's amazing challenge to 7th Circuit nominee Amy Coney Barrett., We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article economy, Article health, Article hobby, Article News, Article politics, Article sports, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title : "The dogma lives loudly within you" — Dianne Feinstein's amazing challenge to 7th Circuit nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
link : "The dogma lives loudly within you" — Dianne Feinstein's amazing challenge to 7th Circuit nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

"The dogma lives loudly within you" — Dianne Feinstein's amazing challenge to 7th Circuit nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

I'm writing about this topic for the first time because there's a NYT op-ed by lawprofs Geoffrey R. Stone and Eric J. Segall that I anticipate will get closer to what I'd like to say than what I've seen so far. At the Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, Dianne Feinstein said something related to religion — Barrett is Catholic — that was phrased very carefully:

“Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

That got a big reaction, including the charge that it violates the constitutional demand that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Is "dogma" a dog whistle, expressive of anti-Catholic bias or does it aptly characterize a person with fixed beliefs that interfere with understanding law in a properly judicial way? As Stone and Segal put it:

Senator Feinstein was not suggesting that Catholics shouldn’t be judges. She was asking whether someone of deep faith and who had previously openly (and in our opinion eloquently) written about the relationship between judging and faith could cast aside her deeply held views when judging. Had Ms. Barrett said that her faith would in fact deeply influence her judging, would the question have been deemed so wrong? We think not.

Likewise, if senators had asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her confirmation hearing if her long history litigating claims of gender discrimination would influence her judging, or if they had asked Chief Justice John Roberts whether his time working in the Bush administration would affect his decision making, no one would have blinked.

Judges regularly decide difficult legal issues in which the law at issue is unclear. In those open spaces, a judge’s personal values and life experiences will inevitably play a role in the outcome of the case. Given that Ms. Barrett had previously explored the relationship between her deeply held religious views and judging, Ms. Feinstein acted well within the bounds of fair questioning to probe deeply on this question.

The main problem with this kind of questioning is that it is so routine and so routinely answered. We're being asked to rely on the decision that will come from the mind of this nominee. That mind must be tested, and it can't be tested enough. There are all sorts of biases and disabilities within any human mind, and the hearings can do very little to expose the limitations of an intelligent, well-prepared nominee.

To create a special immune, untestable zone is absurd.

A nominee with a mind entirely devoted to religion and intending to use her position as a judge to further the principles of her religion should be voted down just like a candidate who revealed that he'd go by "what decision in a case was most likely to advance the cause of socialism."

I'd like to think that a religious person has a strong moral core that would preclude that kind of dishonesty, but we're not required to give religious nominees a pass and presume they're more honest than nominees who are not religious devotees. That would be religious discrimination!

Thus Article "The dogma lives loudly within you" — Dianne Feinstein's amazing challenge to 7th Circuit nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

That's an article "The dogma lives loudly within you" — Dianne Feinstein's amazing challenge to 7th Circuit nominee Amy Coney Barrett. This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article "The dogma lives loudly within you" — Dianne Feinstein's amazing challenge to 7th Circuit nominee Amy Coney Barrett. with the link address https://infotodays1.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-dogma-lives-loudly-within-you.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: