If she is similar to Gorsuch, I can expect a conservative but strict interpretation. While that’s not how I would do things, as long as the line between law and religious dogma is clear in her reasonings and decisions, she’d be qualified, although I wouldn’t be thrilled.
“”Dogma and law are two different things,” Feinstein declared. “And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different.”
Barrett insisted that she’d abide by all precedent and that her writings on the subject actually explain that Catholic judges who find a conflict between their religious views and a specific case need to step aside from that case.
“It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law,” Barrett said during the hearing. ”
I think it was chess until the hearings. The list is chess but once exposed to the open, it’s no longer chess.
To me, Kavanaugh is an activist.
Neither Gorsuch nor Barrett appear to be activists.
I expect a conservative-heavy court to be pushed through but I can handle it as long as they are qualified for the lifelong task and are not agenda driven to the point of insanity.
Ok, that clarifies for me, thank you. I’ll keep my eyes on her, although I still suspect they’ll vote in Kavanaugh.
As long as she’s not an activist, I can handle it. The line between church and state is a very sharp and clear line. A strong Catholic who knows that line would have been ok with me even without the circus.
But there’s no forgiving the blocking of Merrick Garland nor the Kavanaugh circus. The pressure on these Congressmen will be continual and fierce and be reflected at the voting booth.
Positive change is coming.