1/ The idea that it's wrong -- let alone religious bigotry or imposition of a religious "test" -- to ask Amy Coney Barrett (or any judicial nominee) about religious views they hold that might bear directly on their jurisprudence and adjudication of particular cases, is absurd...
2/ Prohibiting formal religious tests doesn't bar asking about one's views & basing support/opposition on that. Conservatives who say otherwise are hypocrites: they would all vote against a Muslim who supported a caliphate, (not that any such person would be nominated)...
3/ Yet they insist it is wrong to ask a fundie Christian about their views? Ridiculous. Obviously there should be no bar to office or judgeship based on views, but knowing what a person thinks and how that might impact their rulings/actions is just informed consent...
4/ Would it be wrong to oppose someone who believed Leviticus should be applied literally, thereby allowing parents to kill children who talk back to them? Or who believes LGBTQ folks should be put to death, or adulterers should be? One can read scripture to allow all that...
5/ And I think we should know if candidates for office or judgeships hold such views so we can make decisions as voters and/or as Senators ratifying judicial appointments. The idea that religious "liberty" means you can believe what you choose is correct. But...
6/ It does NOT mean you get to believe what you choose and then no one else has a right to question it, challenge it, or suggest that perhaps it might be a belief that makes you less desirable as an interpreter of secular law...
7/ If you believe that your job is to "Build the Kingdom of God," which Barrett has said, you are not dispositionally fit to be a judge in a secular nation. Period.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
