/ 
Tristyn Bloom
Matthew Cantirino
Anthony Esolen
Gene Fant
Greg Forster
Matthew J. Franck
Collin Garbarino
Robert P. George
William J. Haun
Leroy Huizenga
Katherine Infantine
Joseph Knippenberg
David T. Koyzis
Robert T. Miller
Matthew Milliner
David Mills
Mark Movsesian
William Mumma
Nathaniel Peters
R.R. Reno
James R. Rogers
Russell E. Saltzman
Matthew Schmitz
Kevin Staley-Joyce
David Talcott
Anna Williams
See this interesting post at The American Catholic: “Supreme Court Justices and Religion”.
To ask some questions is to answer them, and via Commonweal, I see that UCLA history professor emeritus Joyce Appleby has penned a lovely exercise in anti-Catholicism entitled, Should Catholic Justices Recuse Selves On Certain Cases?.
[More]
[The title of this post has been corrected by adding the word "Catholic". JTA]
June 10th, 2009 | 1:01 pm
What’s crazy about this, is the utter ignorance about the constitution it shows. The Constitution it seems has ceased being an actual ‘document’ with ‘words’ and ‘meaning’, and is all about current cultural mores and norms.
Article VI, Seciotn 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
June 10th, 2009 | 5:18 pm
The section precludes a religion test as a qualification for office; recusal from a specific case is a different matter.
However, the proposal is silly. Prof. Appleby seems to have forgotten there will be two women on the court. Shall they recuse themselves when a women’s issue comes before the court?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact