President Eisgruber recently chastised senators for questioning a judicial nominee over writing and stating that she would recuse herself from a case if executing the law conflicted with her Catholic beliefs. Can he be so naïve as to insist “it is ... possible to probe those [judicial] philosophies without reference to the religious affiliation or theological views of a nominee,” when a judge who once defiantly displayed the Ten Commandments in his courtroom may soon be a senator? Given our history of judges flaunting faith-based animus while denying due process and equal protection to the LGBT community? When a Supreme Court with a majority of Catholic justices will decide if a religious right to discriminate against cake-buyers outweighs our right not to be discriminated against when buying cake? Now judges are the victims?

Oh boo-hoo-hoo; try being systematically oppressed, jailed, and murdered for centuries, then cry to me about how tough your job interview was. Being asked about your own words, or the conditions under which you would not do your job, isn’t an unconstitutional “test.” I was devoutly Catholic at Princeton, but have no use now for any institution — secular, religious, or educational — that protects bulwarks of discrimination and abuse while ignoring the real injustices of our world.

Patrick J. Krug ’92
Los Angeles, Calif.