![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerhttp://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/07/congress.judges.ap/index.html
I'm all for everyone having the right to their own religious views and the freedom to worship how they choose. I'm also for the Senate using its powers of advice and consent to determine whether a candidate's views, whether dervided from religion, philosophy, personal experience, or any other source, indicate that he or she is capable of interpreting the law in a fair and balanced manner.
If Judge Holmes feels that women ought to be subordinate to men, that it is a wife's duty to subordinate herself to her husband, then I do not think he can be expected to interpret the Constitution, especially the 14th or 19th Amendments, in reasonable and legitimate manner.
I'm all for everyone having the right to their own religious views and the freedom to worship how they choose. I'm also for the Senate using its powers of advice and consent to determine whether a candidate's views, whether dervided from religion, philosophy, personal experience, or any other source, indicate that he or she is capable of interpreting the law in a fair and balanced manner.
If Judge Holmes feels that women ought to be subordinate to men, that it is a wife's duty to subordinate herself to her husband, then I do not think he can be expected to interpret the Constitution, especially the 14th or 19th Amendments, in reasonable and legitimate manner.
