Neutrality can only happen if the Catholic Judges recuse themselves from the Mississippi challenge to Roe. For separation of church and state, Catholic judges who took pledges to overturn Roe Vs. Wade to the federalist society must step back.

It is an excellent stand of any judge to take when a conflict of interest arises.

Trump let the Federalist Society choose his candidates based on the pledge to eliminate Women’s autonomy and the right to abortion. He even, while campaigning, declared punishing women for having an abortion is correct. Nationwide mourning of Ruth Bader Ginsburg was occurring while Trump-appointed Justice Amy Barrett was attending the super spreader appointment event on the White House lawn, unaware he had tested positive for Covid. This action contradicts his Right to Life stance. He did not give his guests freedom to choose to attend with the knowledge of his contagion. He is only concerned with his right to life, not others.

Now is the time for Judges to show their loyalty to the Constitution, which upholds the right to separation of church and state.

The Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State) The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Roe Vs. Wade made a clear separation fifty years ago.

My long-time Catholic friend who taught Catechism recently told me, “The GOP is using these Catholic Justices for their political purposes. They know it will be hard to uphold the law against their faith. The conflicted Justices should beat them at their own game by doing what’s right when they have a conflict of interest—and recuse themselves. Let the Justices who can remain impartial —and have no conflicts decide; otherwise, they are digging the corruption hole even deeper.”

Gail Pean

Leesburg

(2) comments

jke

J Smith makes better sense than Pean.

J Smith

Thanks Ms. Pean for your letter to the editor on Supreme Court neutrality.

Neutrality in judges is a good thing, right?

Why then stop at Catholic judges recusing themselves from court cases that challenge Roe?

Given the current attitude prevalent within a large swath of the democrat party, white people need to acknowledge their inherent racism. If you believe that, then you believe all white people naturally look at the color of a person’s skin to determine that person’s value and how they should be treated.

If Catholic judges should recuse themselves from cases that involve Roe, then shouldn’t all white judges recuse themselves from cases brought forward by minorities?

How about gay judges? Should they recuse themselves from cases brought forward by business owners seeking protection for their religious views on same-sex marriage?

How about judges with a Latin American descent? Should they recuse themselves from cases involving illegal (or undocumented) aliens who are of Latin American heritage?

If we use this logic, who gets to decide when a “conflict” occurs. None of this makes sense to me.

President’s get to nominate Supreme Court justices. The Senate has the role to confirm. Every president relies on some organization to recommend potential Supreme Court nominees. You’re right, the republicans often use the Federalist Society. The democrats use the NAACP, ACLU, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, and many more liberal/progressive organizations.

I have no problem with a president from either party asking for advice on Supreme Court nominees from organizations they prefer. Why? Because ultimately any candidate nominated will have to go before the full Senate for confirmation.

Let me offer some additional comments on subjects mentioned in your letter.

No judge being considered for nomination to the Supreme Court has ever pledged to eliminate the right to abortion. Doing so would instantly be proclaimed by democrat senators and would equally fast destroy the nominee’s confirmation hopes. Instead, nominees have said they would consider each case before them based on the merits. Isn’t that what they are supposed to do?

Trump never declared that a woman should be punished for having an abortion. What he said is, if abortion is illegal, then a woman having one should be subject to some form of punishment. That’s quite a bit different when you think about it.

Not to worry though, that issue has nothing to do with the current Mississippi case before the Supreme Court. If the Court reverses Roe based on the Mississippi case, abortion will not be illegal. It will just mean that a right to an abortion is not found in the Constitution and so the issue will return to the individual States to decide whether or not they want to permit it, or otherwise put some form of limitation on it.

I don’t understand your comment on Trump’s announcement of Justice Barrett as his nominee, while unaware he tested positive for COVID, as being contradictory to Trump’s Right-to-Life stance. If Trump was unaware he tested positive, then what was he supposed to do? And guests aren’t ever forced to attend an event. They RSVP on whether they are coming or not.

There is nothing in the Constitution or the Establishment Clause (First Amendment) that says “separation of Church and State.” As you mentioned, it says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Over the years, the Supreme Court has been providing clarity on what that means.

But the current case you’re discussing does not have to do with the First Amendment. It has to do with whether a State can restrict abortions after 15 weeks, about two months earlier than Roe and subsequent Supreme Court decisions allow. One of the questions before the Court is should the Court overrule Roe entirely and allow states to make their own decisions on banning abortions past a certain point, or entirely.

I, for one, think the abortion decision should be returned to the States. Let each State decide.

But when it comes to Supreme Court justices, let’s vote for leaders that will nominate and confirm justices that will fairly interpret the Constitution as it was written. We don’t want unelected Justices making law from the bench. We elect legislators to pass laws. We elect Presidents to sign or veto them. We want Justices to ensure that the signed laws don’t violate the Constitution.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading!

Please purchase a subscription to read our premium content. If you have a subscription, please log in or sign up for an account on our website to continue.