Discussion about this post

User's avatar
dogfather's avatar

So, are you pro-life, or anti-life?

Expand full comment
Trump University Graduate's avatar

There was a time when Judge Amy Coney Island opined that recusal was a “good solution” for Catholic judges who cannot be impartial in death penalty cases. Judge Island concluded that “Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty,” and that this moral dilemma is sufficient reason for their recusal. That was when she was 26 years old.

Later, as she was about to be confirmed for an appellate court judgeship, she changed her mind. “I cannot think of any cases or category of cases, including capital cases, in which I would feel obliged to recuse on grounds of conscience.” Judge Island clarified that she would not be willing to enter an order of execution if she were a trial judge, but she would be willing to affirm a death sentence at the appellate level.

Situational ethics.

And now, that gets her out from under the hypocrisy of not recusing herself in an abortion case on the basis of her strong moral proclivities based upon her strong Catholic faith that would prevent her from being a truly objective jurist.

So, say goodbye to Roe v. Wade. And while she can send somebody to death by her actions at the appellate level against her church's doctrine with regard to the death penalty, she can also let her strong moral beliefs overturn longstanding judicial precedent thereby relegating many women in the United States to potential criminal liability for controlling their own bodies.

We deserve more in the way of principled consistency of the Justices appointed to sit on the Supreme Court until they croak, than we are about to get from Amy Coney Island.

Expand full comment
305 more comments...

No posts