- 29 May 2021 18:11
#15174643
@Pants-of-dog, no, simply holding a pro-life opinion is not enough reason for a judge to recuse themselves, or the opposite is also true—that holding a pro-choice opinion is grounds for recusal. Which would mean that pretty much all the judges in the country would have to recuse themselves on questions of abortion. Likewise, a judge that personally opposes the death penalty isn’t required to recuse themselves in cases where the death penalty is an option, though a judge that refuses to apply the death penalty when the law calls for it is in trouble. A justice’s job is to apply the Constitution or law as it is intended, regardless of their personal opinion. Unless you’re a Perfectionist, of course, believing that justices should rule according to how they think the constitution/law ought to be applied, regardless of the original intention, in which case you have to grant that Conservative judges have the same right to apply their beliefs of what the constitution/law ought to be as Liberal justices.
Mind, I could see, say, Barrett participating in a case involving the death penalty, deciding that the legal argument comes down on the side of the death penalty but that her religious beliefs don’t allow her to support it, and not casting a final vote. I haven’t given that situation much thought, but currently I would have no problem with that.
Then we are pretty much in agreement, the only question being what the specific times/situations should be—for me, it’s rape/incest (essentially, any situation where the woman isn’t given a real choice in whether she risks becoming pregnant), early in the pregnancy.
But for this thread, the real question is who gets to set that standard—who gets to decide when a baby becomes an actual person—and IMHO the Constitution clearly gives that to the states rather than the Federal government and certainly not nine unelected justices. Though it would be interesting to see how the justices would react to Congress giving US citizenship—and all the rights that go with that status—to babies from the moment of conception....
Mind, I could see, say, Barrett participating in a case involving the death penalty, deciding that the legal argument comes down on the side of the death penalty but that her religious beliefs don’t allow her to support it, and not casting a final vote. I haven’t given that situation much thought, but currently I would have no problem with that.
Drlee wrote:I have no problem with this. I freely admit that people believe fetuses are babies. I do too at some point in the pregnancy. I also abhor abortion. Would I ban it? I would vote to very severely restrict it. I would not vote to harass women to stop them from having one. I would simply restrict abortion to very specific times and situations.
Then we are pretty much in agreement, the only question being what the specific times/situations should be—for me, it’s rape/incest (essentially, any situation where the woman isn’t given a real choice in whether she risks becoming pregnant), early in the pregnancy.
But for this thread, the real question is who gets to set that standard—who gets to decide when a baby becomes an actual person—and IMHO the Constitution clearly gives that to the states rather than the Federal government and certainly not nine unelected justices. Though it would be interesting to see how the justices would react to Congress giving US citizenship—and all the rights that go with that status—to babies from the moment of conception....
Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.
—Edmund Burke
—Edmund Burke