36
posted ago by flashersenpai ago by flashersenpai +36 / -0

[T]he principle at stake in capital sentencing is a moral one, not a factual or simply legal one. And the judge is asked to violate it—not to reason from different legal premises to morally unobjectionable conclusions (like Justice Brandeis did in Whitney). There is no way the judge can do his job and obey his conscience. The judge’s conscience tells him to impose a life sentence; federal law directs him to impose death. Because the judge is unable to give the government the judgment to which it is entitled under the law, § 455(b)(1) directs him to disqualify himself. (p. 334)

Why nominate someone who could reset the court to 4/4?

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul.

Why nominate someone who would respect the words of a globalist church? A church that supports washing the feet of muslim leaders?

Comments (7)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
RandoMando2A 2 points ago +2 / -0

My thoughts exactly. With loyalty to a globalist church we would be F’d in the A for sure. The Pope is poster child for globalism.