Well, no. From Article 6 of the US Constitution: 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.
"... no religious test ..." means just that. To say that a judge cannot try a given case because he shares religious beliefs with one of the parties is un-Constitutional, and rightly so.
However ...
since (as it appears) this judge is incapable of separating his religious beliefs from his duties as a judge, he should certainly have recused himself from the case -- and failure to do so, and his egregious comments from the bench, point to his being unfit to be a judge, IMO.
This is exactly my point. It's clearly an inherent conflict of interests in this case. Given that Muslims are such a small part of the population at large, and (I would suspect) an even smaller part of the pool of available judges, I find the fact that this particular judge ended up with this particular case to be highly suspicious. If the selection is entirely random it has to be the biggest co-indicene of the year so far.
Reply
Fuck you, asswipe judge. You are clearly incompetent.
Reply
Reply
"... no religious test ..." means just that. To say that a judge cannot try a given case because he shares religious beliefs with one of the parties is un-Constitutional, and rightly so.
However ...
since (as it appears) this judge is incapable of separating his religious beliefs from his duties as a judge, he should certainly have recused himself from the case -- and failure to do so, and his egregious comments from the bench, point to his being unfit to be a judge, IMO.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment