In “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” a law review article, Amy Coney Barrett wrote that judges who were devout Catholics are “obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty,” but they are also “obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters.” They are therefore “morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.” Via The Hill:
What’s a Catholic judge to do, then? According to Barrett’s article, the judge must recuse herself. She can neither enforce the death penalty and violate her religious conscience, nor fail to enforce it and violate her oath of office.
[…] Barrett tells us in the same article that in the context of abortion the case for a Catholic judge’s recusal is even stronger. Unlike the death penalty, the Catholic church’s “prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia are absolute.” And also unlike the death penalty, “abortion and euthanasia take away innocent life.” Abortion, she says, “is always immoral.”
Barrett’s conscience, and her fidelity to the teachings of her church, thus do not allow her to affirm a woman’s right to end her pregnancy, as that would be “formally cooperating” in an absolutely immoral act. But neither may she “betray the public trust” by manipulating constitutional law and precedent “in order to save (unborn) lives.” Nor may she suspend her moral conscience while she decides Dobbs, even if she were able to do so — for that, too, would violate her religious beliefs.
Now, let’s be real. We all know this prissy little cult member is a right-wing religious hypocrite. No way in hell was this Federalist Society spawn ever going to recuse herself from a SCOTUS abortion case, and she will tie herself in whatever knots she needs to justify it. After all, it’s the reason she was installed. (Even though she lied during her nomination hearing that no one could predict how she would rule on anything. Ha, ha!)
And there’s also the problem of her living in the bubble of a religious cult. Yesterday, the Handmaid In Chief actually said these words:
Oh, sure! Because that rhetorical loophole allows her to rationalize overturning Roe while ignoring the human costs of adoption. I mean, in Amy’s World, women who already have kids and can’t afford any more should simply carry a pregnancy to term in front of their biological siblings AND GIVE IT AWAY. No biggie, amirite? No human cost there! And it’s not like your boss might judge you for it! (And I suppose it makes her feel benevolent about her two adopted children, so….)
She had the nerve to assume there was no real risk to carrying a pregnancy to term. No strokes, blood clots, botched surgeries, uterine prolapse, crippling postpartum depression… in Amy’s World, it’s all good.
I’m gonna take her at her word and assume she’s okay with me signing her up as a kidney donor. What’s the biggie, right?