hmm msn.com

Here's The Spectator

a 1998 article published in the Marquette Law Review that Barrett had written offering a very thoughtful analysis of the considerations Catholic jurists would run into regarding issues like euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. Barrett said during the confirmation hearings that were she to be a trial judge she couldn’t see herself entering an order of execution, but that as a clerk for Scalia at the Supreme Court she had advised the Justice on capital cases and would be bound by the Constitution rather than Catholic teaching on matters of the law.

So she wrote an article where she outlined, in theory, how a Catholic jurist might recuse themselves when dogma and law are in conflict but in practice she clerked for a sitting Supreme Court Jurist on the very same types of cases, did not recuse herself, and upheld the Constitution as the guiding advisory principle.

Edit: BTW, for those interested, insofar as the Catholic teaching on capital punishment goes, it has not changed. Nor can it.. Relatively recent statements by bishops and the Pope on the death penalty are prudential judgements. Basically, opinions on the exercise of capital punishment.

hmm msn.com

Here's The Spectator

a 1998 article published in the Marquette Law Review that Barrett had written offering a very thoughtful analysis of the considerations Catholic jurists would run into regarding issues like euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. Barrett said during the confirmation hearings that were she to be a trial judge she couldn’t see herself entering an order of execution, but that as a clerk for Scalia at the Supreme Court she had advised the Justice on capital cases and would be bound by the Constitution rather than Catholic teaching on matters of the law.

So she wrote an article where she outlined, in theory, how a Catholic jurist might recuse themselves when dogma and law are in conflict but in practice she clerked for a sitting Supreme Court Jurist on the very same types of cases, did not recuse herself, and upheld the Constitution as the guiding advisory principle.

Edit: BTW, insofar as the Catholic teaching on capital punishment goes, it has not changed. Not can it.. Relatively recent statements by bishops and the Pope on the death penalty are prudential judgements. Basically, opinions on the exercise of capital punishment.

hmm msn.com

Here's The Spectator

a 1998 article published in the Marquette Law Review that Barrett had written offering a very thoughtful analysis of the considerations Catholic jurists would run into regarding issues like euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. Barrett said during the confirmation hearings that were she to be a trial judge she couldn’t see herself entering an order of execution, but that as a clerk for Scalia at the Supreme Court she had advised the Justice on capital cases and would be bound by the Constitution rather than Catholic teaching on matters of the law.

So she wrote an article where she outlined, in theory, how a Catholic jurist might recuse themselves when dogma and law are in conflict but in practice she clerked for a sitting Supreme Court Jurist on the very same types of cases, did not recuse herself, and upheld the Constitution as the guiding advisory principle.

hmm msn.com

Here's The Spectator

a 1998 article published in the Marquette Law Review that Barrett had written offering a very thoughtful analysis of the considerations Catholic jurists would run into regarding issues like euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. Barrett said during the confirmation hearings that were she to be a trial judge she couldn’t see herself entering an order of execution, but that as a clerk for Scalia at the Supreme Court she had advised the Justice on capital cases and would be bound by the Constitution rather than Catholic teaching on matters of the law.

So sure wrote an article where she outlined, in theory, how a Catholic Jurist may recuse themselves when dogma and law are in conflict but in practice she clerked for a sitting Supreme Court Jurist on the very same types of cases, did not recuse herself, and upheld the Constitution as the guiding advisory principle.

hmm msn.com

Here's The Spectator

a 1998 article published in the Marquette Law Review that Barrett had written offering a very thoughtful analysis of the considerations Catholic jurists would run into regarding issues like euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. Barrett said during the confirmation hearings that were she to be a trial judge she couldn’t see herself entering an order of execution, but that as a clerk for Scalia at the Supreme Court she had advised the Justice on capital cases and would be bound by the Constitution rather than Catholic teaching on matters of the law.

So sure wrote an article where she outlined, in theory, how a Catholic Jurist may recuse themselves when dogma and law are in conflict but in practice she clerked for a sitting Supreme Court Jurist on the very same types of cases, did not recuse herself, and upheld the Constitution as the guiding advisory principle.

hmm msn.com

Here's The Spectator

a 1998 article published in the Marquette Law Review that Barrett had written offering a very thoughtful analysis of the considerations Catholic jurists would run into regarding issues like euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. Barrett said during the confirmation hearings that were she to be a trial judge she couldn’t see herself entering an order of execution, but that as a clerk for Scalia at the Supreme Court she had advised the Justice on capital cases and would be bound by the Constitution rather than Catholic teaching on matters of the law.