Opponents see religious bias in Supreme Court candidate's emails

[rug]

Tom Lutey
13 hrs ago

A Montana Supreme Court candidate’s email conversation about religious freedom lawsuits has sparked concern among anti-discrimination advocates.

Candidate Kristen Juras told a University of Montana colleague in an email last December that she looked forward to deciding religious freedom cases coming before the state Supreme Court in coming years. The email conversation, on her UM email account, worries groups concerned about right-of-refusal lawsuits filed in the name of religious freedom.

“The fact that she has named this as one of her top issues and motivation for serving on the court is alarming” said Caitlin Borgmann of the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana. The ACLU doesn't take sides in elections. It does work on civil liberties.

At issue is the Dec. 8 email conversation between Juras and psychology professor Lucian Conway III. Juras is an adjunct law professor at the University of Montana, where Conway also teaches.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/opponents-see-religious-bias-in-supreme-court-candidate-s-emails/article_2d6f1b12-e5b1-5a1e-b3b3-63ddaf2f3be6.html

I hope this gets out across Montana before the election.

[Igel]

1. It's a hot-button issue.

If a social-justice proponent was up for a judgeship would people talk about bias?

How about when politicians talk about wanting biases in judges? Shouldn't a judge try to be neutral?

The answer is "yes" when we don't like their bias. But if we like their bias, then, well, we're the very definition of neutral. Wanting somebody in a judgeship that advances our cause over theirs is a great and glorious thing. Trying to be neutral isn't seen as an ideal but a pretense; not living up to ideals isn't a failure to meet the goal but as hypocrisy masking true intent. Ill will wins and the "commons" that is the court is subject to the usual tragedy.