Her religion doesn't scare me as much as the fact that she has only sat on the bench for less than a year; was an academic for over a decade, living in an ivory tower; and has never had a law practice with actual clients to see how laws actually affect the citizens of this country. There are more able candidates out there; although, if the EPA administrator is an example of Trump's poor judgment in picking people, he might as well nominate Rudy Giuliani.
1
The new SCOTUS will once and for all have to decide whether the USA is an oligarchy, plutocracy or theocracy. If the latter, they'll then have to fight amongst themselves to decide whether the State Religion will be Catholic, Evangelical, or Jewish.
12
I'm counting on Ivanka's self-proclaimed advocacy for women to prevent these outrageous decisions. HA!
20
Yes, just ask her about her jurisprudence, just as I am sure a Muslim appointed to the judiciary, or a person claiming to be an atheist, would be.
While the #PLIC has no religion to speak of, his supporters and many others on the right are very comfortable with a theocratic regime.
Let us not praise religious fanatics, whatever stripe. Call them what they are.
23
Trump's decisions - every one of them - are designed to further his psychopathological need for absolute control. Everything he does furthers his goal of authoritarian rule. We are now living in a global Game of Thrones where every leader wants to be a dictator.
Trump will choose a Justice who will proactively increase his absolute power.
We are past the tipping point and Democracy is already dead. It died while we were sleeping.
This fact must be faced and not normalized - we need to devise a strategy for survival. Step one is getting rid of the feeble Democratic leadership who deny what is plainly happening and are always too late and too little.
We need a Blue State leader who can get in front of this black tide and take a stand, someone capable of ultimate sacrifice.
21
There’s no reason to rush ahead with filling the pending Supreme Court vacancy. Barrett’s only qualification seems to be that she’ll antagonize Democrat’s.
15
It will be a conservative no William Douglas. She clerked under Scalia a brilliant legal mind. She is not part of the Yale-Harvard axis she comes from the middle of the country not the coast. Remember David Souter?
6
If there are already six Catholic justices, maybe a seventh is three too many?
17
I am more concerned about Barrett’s lack of experience as a judge than her Catholic faith, although that worries me, too. However, I don’t think tRump would really choose her, mainly because she is a woman. I have to agree that he’s only using her to get the Democrats fired up. If he does choose her, senate Democrats must use restraint and not ask quesions that will look like an attack on her faith. We seem to have come a long way from the days when most people in this country hated Catholics, especially evangelical Christians. JFK being a Catholic was such a concern that people were afraid that the Pope would have an influence over American politics. I guess those days are over.
2
We no longer have separation of church and state. It seems to have disappeared a while ago only it is now no longer a secret.
That "christianity" is being forced down the throats of those who do not follow its tenets is terrifying. What if you have no religion? What about the many people in this country who have a different religion? Not everyone believes in "sin."
For a while, religion in the USA was dying out. Then the "evangelicals" came along and stirred up a lot of emotion by preaching rigid ideas, narrow thinking, fear and distrust, and by allowing hate to take hold in religious services. The "energy" of all this is appealing to people whose lives are rather dull. Work, eat, watch TV, play sports, repeat. Church supplies friends, camaraderie, social standing and excitement. In some religions it also fosters financial prosperity.
Jesus said, Love Your Neighbor. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He said a rich man can no more get into heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle. He would be horrified by the super "religious" people who are about as unspiritual as people can get.
What a dark time and a dark day to celebrate the creation of the Torchlight of the World, America. The Statue -- a woman -- in our harbor is weeping. I join her, as do many others. My beloved country is falling apart but millions of my fellow citizens are thrilled because they are brainwashed by FOX and blinded by Trump. The founding fathers would be shocked.
21
Question: isn't the whole idea of state-sponsored religion anathema to the very idea of America?
Feinstein was right.
There's no way a judge who puts her religious ideas above the ideals of America, and our Constitution, and the First Amendment rights of the American people, belongs on the Supreme Court.
32
Why not dare Trump to appoint her?
Her longing for our country to become an even more extreme christianist theocracy would have to make the few rational conservative sitting justices get a grip on how out of whack we already are. It could function as a reality check and force the Chief Justice to find creative ways to manage her fever dreams of law straight out of the new testament.
Bonus points added for her having undergrad and law degrees from elsewhere than the ivies.
1
While appointing Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court may fire up his base, those of us who oppose this appointment will be fired up also, and there are more of us!
23
It should be obvious to most of us by now that Trump is truly a menace to the nation. But what is really frightening is the GOP's acceptance of him as a bonafide leader and what this implies.
20
But what exactly does she believe in? Just because she is a staunch Catholic does not mean that she would shun the constitution in favor of Christian dogma coming from Rome. Has she actually stated that she is against abortion, period? Being a law professor at Notre Dame is not quite as abysmal as being the same at, say, Bob Jones University(if there even is such a place).
I had thought that Trump would nominate his sister, or a Russian, to the post. She doesn't seem half bad. And she's a woman with six kids, so might have some empathy for something.
7
There are a number of concerns about Amy Coney Barrett becoming the next Supreme Court nominee (primarily her inexperience as judge) that Democrats and others can and should raise that have absolutely nothing to do with her religious beliefs or association.
6
This is not about her religion. It is not even about her. It is about a minority imposing their unwanted views and beliefs upon a majority of the people of this country.
The majority of people in this country did not cast a vote for the current president. He is in office only because of the Electoral College, an outdated institution put into place by former slave owners and designed to help them maintain their political power.
On top of this, one man -- the Senate majority leader -- refused to allow a legitimately elected, majority president to exercise his right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, arguing that elections were coming up -- in ten months -- and that "the people" should be allowed to vote first.
Well, "the people" spoke, and the majority voted for Mrs. Clinton. She received more popular votes than any other canfidate in history, apart from Barack Obama. In other words, most Americans did not vote for Trump. Nor did we vote for his cabinet or his judicial nominees. He is in office only because of an old quirk in the system. He is the most illegitimate president ever to sit in the Oval Office, with the possible exception of Bush II.
National elections are only FIVE months away. According to McConnell's precedent, nobody should be allowed to nominate any Supreme Court judge within ten months of a national election. So the people should be given a chance to "speak" in November, before any nominations are made.
27
Tough decision even for a non-partisan. Basically, if she (ACB) cannot, or will not, separate dogma (catholic dogma, that is, which cannot be subject to discussion, and based purely on belief) from reason, she does not deserve to be in a position of judicial power, and decide on the fate of people with different beliefs and needs, and still maintain some sense of equanimity, and justice; and without it, no societal peace is possible. Isn't the latter what is required so we can transcend our petty interests, and biases, and malevolent moves to worsen inequality, and poverty, and institutionalized violence? Of course, by now we ought to know the unscrupulousness of brutus ignoramus Trump, who would do just about anything to subvert this country standing, if he thinks it will add cruelty to his sick ego, and to his utter disregard for the rule of law. And if WE won't mount the courage to stop his institutionalized violence, then WE deserve him.
11
Never mind Republicans.
The problem is that Democrats cannot be counted on to block any of Trump's appointees.
The DINOs will throw us all under the bus.
So much for questions about "purity."
5
Judge Barrett may not be the ideal candidate for a seat on the Supreme Court, but she appears to be a better choice for the US ambassador to the Vatican than Newt Gingrich's current wife. It's too bad Benedict is no longer the Pope and that Judge Barrett is a woman; otherwise she'd be a good choice for the College of Cardinals.
4
Whenever the third rail issue of abortion electrifies political debate between opposing tracks of religious faith & US Constitutional law, sparks and shocks are unavoidable, if not outright derailment of civil debate. The fringe right might not be gunning down & murdering doctors who perform abortions lately but passions among those on the pro-life side who decry any abortion under any circumstance to be a sin against God, continue to burn white hot.
Few political figures have ever bared their conflicted souls in public as honestly & articulately as then New York State governor, Mario Cuomo, on the issue of abortion. As a man who professed his strong Catholic faith, he genuinely expressed his very real internal conflict between his faith & US law with respect to abortion. Ultimately, he concluded he had the obligation as an elected official to support Roe v. Wade & not to allow his own personal faith to overrule existing U.S. law which had already been vigorously debated & decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mario Cuomo essentially acknowledged he had no right to deny anyone who did not share his own personal religious ideology, the right to an abortion.
The frightening irony of an America which owes its very existence to our forefather who fled religious tyranny of a king, only to recreate a newer version of it in the present, should give nightmares to any thinking patriotic Americans. Furthermore, King Donald as pro-life, good Christian, is the epitome of fake news.
9
Never forget: the sickness of this man (Trump) is that he LOVES a fight. He's the arsonist that throws a match in the old, oil-soaked mills and sweatshops of old and stands back thrilled, THRILLED to watch the conflagration that ensues.
This appointment to the Supreme Court would produce the same results.
7
I'm not sure why she shouldn't talk about her faith. She has a right to so. Would you her keep mum about this but then act out adversely in judicial ruling. One of the anti Row vs Wade arguments being brought up now, is the basis of the decision, the right to privacy. As I recall that was Bork's argument which kept him off the bench. But if she swore on her bible that she would not overthrow Roe, would you feel better. If it does, there is a bridge to Brookland, someone will sell you. The attack has encompassed misdirection. They are keeping your eyes Roe vs Wade while eating away at at the ability to suppress the right we should have. Regulations on clinics, length of the pregnancy and other restrictions are piece by piece removing the availability. The courts have overturned some of these. But a person could disavow any intention to overthrow Roe with absolute honesty and at the sametime do more and more damage to the availability But in recent years, our right to privacy has eroded and that is what should be reversed and it doesn't have to have anything to do with Roe vs Wade. We cannot forget that.
5
Were it not for dumping the tea in Boston Harbor, we might all be good Anglicans, removing the religious issue from the discussion of Supreme Court judges and candidates.
Just a thought for July 4th ...
2
The religion haters like Feinstein and the leftist democrats will get this nomination shoved right down their throats. No filibuster. Trump wins again. I am getting tired of all this winning.
11
Me too. But not in the way you see it. We may not recover from this illegitimate election.
1
Looking for diversity in politics and approaches to law is not hating religion. It is pathetic that the homogenized conservatives will never understand that.
2
Frank, you forgot to mention that Amy Coney Barrett would be a litmus between pro-God conservatives and anti-God liberals. After all, remember it was the Democrats that eliminated the Deity from their 2016 Platform. We all know how that worked out.
4
About 83% of Americans self-identify as christian. Unless you want to claim that 83% of Americans are also rightwing Trump supporters, then I suggest you think again about claiming liberals are "anti-god." Liberals who are religious find that Trump and most Republicans violate every one of their religious beliefs, just like my lifelong Republican brother who finally decided today's Republicans violate his religious beliefs on almost every issue.
4
The radical liberal dogma lives deep within Feinstein and the deep state she relishes. Vote her out.
8
That Trump can out flank the Democratic leadership is the most alarming aspect of the situation.
This is made obvious by the Democratic campaign spending $1B in the 2016 election and getting beaten by a NY blow hard and a few Russian trolls that spent $200k. And you can't throw Hillary under the bus, as they lost the Presidency, Senate, House, State houses - and now they are Shocked that they are going to loose SCOTUS?
It's like watching a chess game, and Trump is playing checkers and the Democrats walk away to watch tv. It's a Monty Python skit.
How dumb do you have to be to get beaten by TRUMP? I fear we are about to find out. I would like NYT to be able to analyze the failings of the Democratic Party leadership along with the latest Trump kerfuffle. The first step of recovery is admitting you have a problem.
10
Why are there so many Catholics on the SC bench or being considered for the bench?
11
Except for two Jewish women, it’s the Supreme Catholic Court as far as I can see.
17
Donald Trummp will Make America Great Again -- coathanger nation.
2
Barrett is symbolic of the old admonition the Constitution provides freedom of religion and from religion. Her Catholicism should be confined to her front yard. Stay off of everyone else's grass please.
13
The Constitution says only that religion shall not be used as a test for public offices, faith cannot be legitimized by legislation, and practice of religion must not be coerced.
2
That an attorney with such limited experience could be considered for any court, much less this one, is an insult to the institutions and to our country. Happy birthday, Amerika.
8
Open faced, and deeply ugly, anti-Catholic bigotry, Mr. Bruni. Opposition to abortion as simple religious conviction is a lie of the pro abortion movement. Shame on you. The seventh commandment is thou shalt not steal. Does that make private property simply a religious conviction? Ugly and shameful.
7
There is no such thing as the “pro abortion movement.”
“Opposition to abortion as simple religious conviction...” The commenter is correct here. It’s not religious conviction, it’s religious fanaticism - the savage need to force their religion on the rest of us.
9
Troll President leading a party of trolls.
This isn’t about law or justice. This is all about the GOP, a minority party, forcing it’s unpopular agenda on the majority.
The all white Southern fried GOP sees how diverse this country is becoming and it terrifies them. The Court is a just means for them to enact their agenda of racism, homophobia and misogyny since they know it cannot win at the ballot box.
14
Elections do matter.
13
Barrett will never be able to separate church and state.
11
Pathetic that in a country of 320 million legal abortion rests in one Justice.
19
Oh, Frank, there are lots of opinions out there. How about a Gay Supreme Court pick?
4
OMG - No Harvard - No Yale!! How can this be..... Somebody from the midwest, fly-over country? Never in this America!!
7
" 'The dogma lives loudly within you,' Feinstein said, inelegantly, drawing censure from people on various points of the political spectrum."
Sorry, Barrett cannot have it both ways. She cannot wear her faith on her sleeve by making a public show of her devotion and piety and then expect the subject of her religiosity to be off limits when she's in the running for a seat on the United States Supreme Court.
I know, you know, and President Trump certainly knows that she's being sent there to reverse Roe v. Wade and perhaps roll back other advances in civil liberties such as same-sex marriage.
From where I stand as a gay man, Barrett's association with Antonin "Nino" Scalia is as unwholesome and ominous as Donald Trump's tutelage under the venomous Roy Cohn.
If our society is incapable of accepting the foregoing comment and Feinstein's as part of the discussion about the implications of Barrett's possible nomination, then the battle to preserve the secular character of our nation is already lost. Civility be damned.
16
Ultimately it is denial of the realities of overpopulation colliding with climate change. The converse of their religion is that what they disbelieve will never come to pass.
2
Would liberals be openly asking questions about faith if the nominee was a devout Muslim?
7
Would anyone permit a justice who felt the law had to follow sharia?
7
We will find out when the time comes. If the Muslim showed an inclination or history that mixed his religious views with views on settled and Constitutional laws the answer would certainly be yes. Particularly since Muslim law seems to be pretty much what religious conservatives are looking to impose
3
Or would "conservatives" be comfortable with 5 fundamentalists on the bench who were Muslim?
The problem is people whose first instinct is not US Law.
3
This is a coup through appointment and executive order. We are living in dark times, and while many of us will be gone off this earth during the full tenure of such a possible appointment, our children will be living in the new "hell on earth" that so many of us fought to avoid over the years. A sad statement that any politician would lose all common sense and allow this. This July 4th is not feeling like it should be celebrated, given the direction of this country. We can only fight against it and hope.
14
I realize this is a stupid question but to overturn a Supreme Court decision don't you have to have a case and a client? Where is someone being denied their civil/constitutional rights? Nobody is forcing anyone to get an abortion. Weird. As for this hag, like the opponent home run ball at Wrigley Field, throw it back, you don's want that one.
1
Agree with your point about SCOTUS. But not so much with the gender-specific insult.
Bruni is spot on - and yet, Barrett might be the less-bad choice vs. Brett Kavenaugh, a hard-core, highly experienced "originalist" who would likely back Trump 100 percent in his attacks on the Mueller investigation and systematic dismantling of the regulatory state. The more religiously oriented Barrett might actually have some qualms about that. Plus, she might be easier for Dems to defeat, given the unpopularity of the social positions she champions. And that would be the best case scenario for Dems right now - to push this appointment fight past the midterms.
3
Dear Frank you are in my thoughts a lot and I look forward to your well written columns. Thank you.
Suzy.
3
Have we returned to the late 1950s, when people questioned whether John F. Kennedy could be an independent president or whether he would take orders from the Pope?
My question is not one of religion, but whether any nominee will make decisions based on the Constitution rather than on personal preferences. I would prefer a liberal nominee, but if we can't delay the nomination and vote past the midterms, then the next best thing is an honest and moral nominee.
4
It's a legitimate question.
The people have a right to decisions in a secular state that are uninfluenced by religious considerations.
7
As I stated, I think the question is broader, not just religion but integrity.
Barbara--With this potential, politicized, unbalanced court, I think we know the answer to your question. My question is whether a new, stronger Congress can reign them in, somehow. And that could be the best reason to vote for Democrats, this fall (as you should have in 2016, when we warned everybody about the Supreme Court.) I always said I didn't care for Clinton, but I was concerned about a too extremely conservative SCOTUS, and that would be the best reason to vote for her. The dummies couldn't seem to process that information.
3
Judge Amy Coney Barrett may indeed be instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade but she may also be a big disappointment to conservatives on other issues dear to conservatives. As a Catholic affiliated with an ecumenical charismatic group, she very well may be inclined to adhere to her Church's teachings regarding justice issues on race, poverty, just war, the need to protect the environment and the evils of income inequality. Senators of the Catholic faith need to probe her attachments to doctrines other than Right to Life. Moderates and Democrats in the senate may be pleasantly surprised.
6
Women, however, may be relegated to back-alley abortions.
It's a pretty serious thing to overlook the rights of half the population.
1
There was a telling moment in the 2016 vice presidential debate concerning religion. The moderator asked Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, “Can you discuss in detail a time when you struggled to balance your personal faith and a public policy position?”
Kaine prefaced his answer as follows: “I try to practice my religion in a very devout way and follow the teachings of my church in my own personal life. But I do not believe in this nation -- a first amendment nation where we do not raise any religion over the other and we allow people to worship as they please, that the doctrines of any one religion should be mandated for everyone.”
He then mentioned his obligation when he was governor to enforce the death penalty in Virginia despite his personal and religious objections.
Mike Pence had a very different answer, one that made clear that he saw so conflict whatsoever between his religious beliefs and responsibilities as a public servant. “But for me, I would tell
you -- the sanctity of life proceeds out of the belief that ancient principle that where God says before you were formed in the womb I knew you, and so for my first time in public life, I sought to stand with great compassion for the sanctity of life.“
If she is nominated, senators shouldn’t be afraid to ask Judge Barrett a similar question. Perhaps her answer would be just as revealing as Pence’s.
9
I don't respect Kaine for his honesty.
Accepting the use of the death penalty had nothing to do with "obligation" and everything to do with discarding principles to conform to an unjust and inhuman law.
Doing right by others supersedes all manmade laws.
@Jerry: You shouldn’t run for office if you can’t separate your personal beliefs from your responsibilities as a public official. Otherwise, you’re no better than the clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
5
If Barrett is nominated, one of the first questions posed to her should be: "Would you define judicial activism as you see it, and explain why you would not be a judicial activist?"
8
It is only fair that Roe v Wade be overturned; this is the wish of the voting public (who elected Trump). Although it has been demonstrated many times that elections have consequences, many pro-choice women (e.g., Susan Sarandon), despite the Ralph Nader experience, did not vote or voted for a candidate that could not win. Maybe this time the non-voters will learn to care, and the Stein voters will learn that "the best is the enemy of the good".
4
According to US Census figures, slightly more than 61% of eligible voters voted in 2016. Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes than Trump, suggesting that she better reflected the popular will. Recent Pew research found that 69% of Americans are opposed to overturning Roe; even a majority of Republicans (53%) are opposed to overturning the decision. Polling over a couple of decades has found that a clear majority of Americans disagree with overturning Roe.
9
Exactly right. I have such contempt for those who deemed themselves "too pure" to vote for Clinton when this was always the obvious result of such precious self-indulgence.
Overturning Roe is neither fair nor the wish of the majority of Americans. Obviously, you are not a woman.
You cannot blame the voters for the overreach of a reactionary, oligarchic government.
2
Mr. Bruni misses an important implication about a commitment to the Catholic faith when he sees the Republicans setting up Ms. Barrett as a '"Christian Martyr, minus the grizzly end, and daring the Democrats to take the bait."
Martyrdom is not about the end, grizzly or not. It is the unflinching witness to a higher commitment even in the face of a promise of formidable status, privilege, influence, wealth or power. Hence, the reference to temptation interestingly recalls the temptations in the desert which, of course, were the eventual rejection of power and self-aggrandizement.
Catholic teaching holds up those witnesses who vocally reject all forms of human indignity, all systems which perpetuate this indignity, all actions which destroy this dignity in favor of the retention of wealth and power. This is witness in its original sense. There is no better example than John the Baptist. For this reason he was called the voice crying out in the wilderness.
Ms. Barrett's true commitment to her (and my) Christianity may well be to take herself out of the running because the source of the call shows no concern for the dignity of human life beyond what suits an ability to remain in power. This rejection will not meet the same grizzly fate as John. But in our environment of politics, it will certainly be a voice in our wilderness, martyrdom, in it original sense.
4
I'm waiting for the day when a dedicated public defender is nominated as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Such a person, who has worked in the trenches defending people for whom the power of the state has been arrayed, and all that is standing between them and being crushed by the state, is the Bill of Rights and it's fragile yet potent rights. Only then, will we have someone who truly understands what the Constitution is and it's true function, rather than someone who has dealt with it in the sterile confines of academia and appeals court sterility.
11
Do not be surprised if President Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court justice out of spite. She is so loathed and detested by the leftists that he might just do this as he has voted for other policies protested by those who oppose him. He is his own person and rarely listens to public opinion especially when it comes from the liberals. I hope he follows this same pattern now with Ms. Barrett.
It must be also stressed that he thinks she would make a very fine Justice or he would not have appointed her to be a judge on the court of appeals for the seventh circuit. She is highly intelligent and qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let's hope she gets the nomination and ultimately lands on the bench. This would be a feather in Mr. Trump's cap as he would have selected two outstanding Justices, the other being Neal Gorsuch. Also he would have selected a woman which would appeal to many.
4
I watched previous hearings when she was questioned about the religion issue. She seemed to be of the belief that religious dogma trumps legal or constitutional rules. THAT is not freedom of religion, but rather further blurs the line that our Constitution clearly states about separation of Church and State. Though she is Catholic, the Religious Right must be doing a dance of joy hoping she gets nominated and confirmed. Meanwhile, another piece of brick and mortar from our democracy disintegrates. Any bets on what will happen to Roe v. Wade???
7
How has she judged from the bench? Her background seems very lean in this respect.
3
I am a practicing Catholic. I do not support abortion or the death penalty. However, I would not want Roe vs. Wade overturned. We are a country of laws based on a fundamental principle of individual self-determination. Yes, the law limits us from making choices harmful to others, and laws work best when they work broadly. But women must be free of government control over their bodies, a narrow and discriminatory interpretation of the purpose of law. Instead, I would support birth control for both men and women and responsible sexual behavior by both men and women.
12
A woman with seven children (two adopted) and a Catholic (universal) perspective can understand the Constitution just as well as a male atheist. What frightens the left is that this particular women may have the guts to do her job well and influence other justices.
8
The elephant in the room is that we are being ruled by a minority, soon, regardless of which conservative is selected to the court, to be ruled by a minority of religionists, Trump notwithstanding. We already have a Catholic majority on the court that is out of line with their percentage of our population. This is tyranny. In no way is the US a democracy at this point. Voter apathy, voter suppression, a rigged constitution that favors both conservative rural American and the oligarchy has brought us to this point. It suits the oligarchs for people to be enthralled to religious doctrine as it keeps them safe. As the bumper sticker says, "Religion is what keeps poor people from killing rich people." The constitution, written 200 years ago, in much simpler times, has become a false idol, justifying all manner of evil. Civil unrest is on its way.
5
Why was Dianne Feinstein deemed "inelegant" in describing that "the dogma lives loudly within you?" I think that is perfectly elegant. People know exactly what Feinstein meant, and it aptly describes this throwback. There is no good solution to the problem of Trump and the Supreme Court, except to get out and vote overwhelmingly for Democrats at every level, from dog catcher to Senator and Governor this November
15
The horror of the Trump presidency is not that we have a hard-line conservative in office who's life has revealed his strict adherence to unbending dogma, and therefore now in the ultimate seat of power, he's unfurling a coherent, consistent vision of an America he has long dreamed about. No. That would be harmful enough, but we have on our hands is worse: Donald Trump, who in his heart of hearts couldn't care less about right- or left-wing ideology (and who probably thinks belief in something bigger than your own immediate desires is a sucker's game), is playing around with forces that will reshape American life for generations. Like a child playing with explosives, he knows not the true danger of what he's doing, but hopes the "Boom!" is nice and loud. Anything that will bring him attention, and will wring tears from his enemies, is good policy.
9
Unfortunately, she will never be a Trump successful candidate, for the same reasons that Trump would never pick a vice presidential female candidate. This choice here is just for a media storm.
1
Why is religion so special? Is it OK if we know Barrett is a Catholic, and a particular kind of Catholic? Can we know it and not talk about it, and not let it influence us in any way? Can she be asked about her religion and how it affects her life? Can she be asked how her religion affects her political decisions, or her judicial choices? What does it mean to say religion is personal?Can Barrett be asked about her understanding of “separation of Church and State”? And so on and so forth ....
For some religion is pure superstition, for other it is the essence of existence!
3
Will swing voters Collins Murkowski McCain embrace her? I don't think being a devout Catholic is going to make much difference? Seems to me more likely than not if nominated she will be confirmed
The conservatives on the Supreme Court are unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade. They're closet partisans, and they know that doing so would be extremely damaging to the Republican Party. In current polls, an overwhelming majority of Americans want the decision to stand. Besides, dispensing with Roe would accomplish little. It wouldn't make abortion illegal; it would only allow the Republican-dominated Red States to pass laws banning it. Overturning Roe would be a violation of the revered principle of stare decisis, making the justices who take this grave step look cravenly political. It would further erode the esteem in which they and the nation's highest court are held within the legal profession. John Roberts won't allow this to happen. But if Roe is not overturned quickly, Trump will lose the support of the Evangelicals. They will angrily denounce him. Remember when George W. Bush started his second term by announcing that his top priority would be privatizing Social Security? His religious right "base" was enraged. They had put him in the White House to do one things: outlaw abortion. With Trump, it will be even worse. These supposedly devout Christians sold their souls for him. They ignored his long and sordid sexual and marital history to achieve one extremely unrealistic goal: to get control of the Supreme Court and abolish abortion. Trump knows this, so he wants Roe overturned. It will be fun to watch his head explode when the Court doesn't rush to give him what he wants.
3
If you want to know the religious tolerance of someone then ask them what it would be like for their daughter to marry a non-Judeo Christian person who is strong in their non-Judeo Christian faith. It is not so long ago 1978, for sure, that Judeo Christian‘s made it illegal for traditional Indian people to practice their faith in public except in public spectacles like a Powwow. That was true in America from 1883 two 1978 when Jimmy Carter signed the freedom of religion act for American Indians. In the nation where the circle of identities has been given as the ideal that absolves America’s checkered past with Blacks, American Indians and Asians having a solidly Judeo Christian Supreme Court makes one‘s less than paranoid or being suspicious. Replacing a moderate Catholic with a radical one does not make me feel comfortable on this Independence Day.
10
There is no such thing as a Judeo Christian any more than there is an Islamo Christian
2
This gets better by the day
As do Trumps poll numbers
In every demographic
Keep spinning
We keep winning
4
As John Oliver pointed on his show Sunday night, for people concerned about the composition of the Supreme Court, there are two extremely important elections to target. The mid-terms in 2014 and the presidential election of 2016.
It's kind of too late to complain about the results now. There is absolutely nothing that can prevent a Trump appointee. Everyone wants to rail against the "deplorables" who voted for Trump (and I've done my share of that). But the responsibility lies mostly with all of those who were too lazy to vote in 2014 to prevent a GOP sweep, and those who were too pure to "lower" themselves to vote for Clinton in 2016. I'm talking to you, Bernie supporters; and to you, silly Stein voters; and to you, the millions of black Americans who stayed home on election day; and to all the rest of you who found one excuse or another to abdicate your responsibility as citizens.
Now we all reap what you have sown. You know what I think America needs? It needs to have Roe v. Wade overturned. It needs to see basic human rights infringed. Unfortunately it needs to have some citizens suffer. Because that is obviously the only hope we have for people to take their responsibilities as citizens seriously.
Everyone wants to claim their rights, but those rights aren't free. When we take them for granted and stop being informed and active citizens, we put them at risk. And the ones who suffer are always the most vulnerable among us.
6
"..., her own time on the bench is limited to her eight months on that court." This woman is unqualified to be considered a Supreme Court judge. She's more qualified to be a professor of law.
8
Barrett is little more than conservatives taking a page from the familiar identity politics playbook. Did anyone think that would be a two way street?
Whomever Trump nominates to the Supreme Court will be confirmed, with several Democrats voting with the GOP. Opinion, but I'll wager anyone foolish enough to take the bet a sizeable sum on that outcome.
Liberals would be well advised to forget about the Supreme Cort and concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
The GOP has control of not just the Congress and White House, but a majority of states and statehouses (32 or 33, depending on how you view NE), as well as most counties, municipalities and even school boards.
Liberals should fight the GOP the way George Washington fought the British: Don't engage the enemy head-on where you can't win and concentrate your forces on the many small battles where you actually have a chance.
4
Frank, you have repeatedly cautioned Democrats to be pragmatic, calm and civilians at the same time, after your colleague Maureen ReginaGeorge Dowd you were most critical of Hillary Clinton who exemplified those qualities. As a fellow gay man I can safely tell you that trump got Gorsuch on the court, he will succeed here and our rights are now a lot more precarious
1
There are five Catholics on the Court now, Barrett would replace one of them to maintain the majority (Gorsuch goes to an Episcopal church but was raised a Catholic...so technically there are six Catholics on the Court.) Why not a Protestant?..they are the dominant Christian segment of the 37% of Americans who attend church regularly. And who represents the 63% of Americans who don't attend religious services? And why not a Deist?...many Founding fathers were Deists. Let's be fair now as long as we're changing our plutocracy into a theocracy.
4
Trump will pick Kavanaugh! The reason is his opinion, on the President not being subjected to lawful oversight. Trump only has one objective as President, that is his himself.
3
I am a proud liberal who is very offended by these so-called liberals who are insulting Catholics in these comments. A Supreme Court justice crafts a ruling based on the Constitution and precedent, not their religion. Just because someone is Catholic or Muslim or Jewish doesn’t mean that they will ram their religion into each opinion. The concept itself is offensive.
10
Except that Ms. Barrett specifically commented on this issue and indicated that her faith must always come first.
6
Wake up.
The Catholics on the Supreme Court have ruled according to their religious beliefs on every case that involved religion.
That's the insult, not the calling of attention to it.
2
The deliberate appointment of judges to the high court who want
to control women without actually
jailing them for life marginalizes half the population without cause.
It seems so obvious that men in positions of power need to recluse themselves from womens’ decisions regarding a woman’s own body, because those men are in effect demonstrating a vested interest.
An interest in controlling women.
Women, though, are not taking the opportunity to control mens’ bodies in any equivalent way.
The equal opportunity to marginalize mens’ decisions over their own bodies is long overdue.
From the group of parishioners who stood by while their leaders on the ground failed to do anything about institutional pedophilia going on simultaneously all around the world... that’s the last place I’d look for “pro life” leadership.
14
Amy Coney Barrett's religious faith should not be on the table and Chuck Schumer is right not to take that approach. But what the right-wing, Christian conservative movement has done over the years — decades, really — is work diligently to greatly reduce the gap in the Separation of Church and State to nothing more than a malleable concept to be decided by a deeply Christian SCOTUS, with the exception of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is Jewish.
The constant harangue from, most notably, the evangelicals that they are under assault by secularists, is nothing less than a fabrication. And they know their only real media outlet promoting this ruse is Fox Noise.
That fact is, as reported by the Times, membership in the evangelical movement has declined because of the loss of members who have felt betrayed by a faith of hypocrisy; that the "faith" has been taken over, and become nothing more than a media tool for the most (un)Christian of Christian politicians and practitioners of the faith.
As a secularist, the hypocrisy in so many of today's Christians leaves me breathless. They use the courts and political power to beat down the very people Jesus sought to help: the sick, the poor, the homeless, the elderly, and the very young among us. Nearly all of the legislation written for Congressional consideration is created by think tanks like The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute and ALEC.
Ms. Barrett will write her opinions with equal hypocrisy.
3
God gave us the greatest gift of them all; free will. The ability to choose abortion or not. Roe v Wade also talks about the need of privacy to make a tough decision. As a Christian I supports a woman's righto choose for its a personal decision that as a man I will never have to face. Whether its 'right' or 'wrong' is between that woman and her Deity of choice. For if I foist my views or my personal morality on others then it leads to tyranny. Denying others the freedom to choose for themselves. For conservatives that support the Right to Life during conception and personhood in the womb, I ask you this...then how can you support young children and infants being caged as animals because they are from the wrong side of border? Your hypocrisy is telling. Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to save an unborn child but once born they wash their hands of that child. They went to the extent of denying a sitting president right to select a supreme court justice in Merrick Garland.
8
She is our future.
1
No.
6
People of Praise is a cult and Amy Cony Barrett is a long time member. In adhering to the principles of this extremist group she is beholding follow the orders of its leaders. She is not free to make objective decisions. It is dangerous to have someone so extreme sitting on the Supreme Court. She is beyond conservative she is a fanatic follower in a fringe organization that controls her life and her thinking.
3
The scam being used here is typical of modern day Washington. Find the person with the smallest paper trail, and a sympathetic home life...and push them through the political appointment process.
Is Barrett the most qualified candidate? Obviously, not. But that's not how Supreme Court Justices are selected by republicans. Republicans want an ideologue who will make up the law to fit their dogma. Conservatives claim they want strict constructionists to hide their radical trashing of the constitution. Barrett sounds like the perfect ideologue to "interpret" the constitution to the liking of the Trump base.
Obama selected the most qualified candidate in Supreme Court history when he selected Merrick Garland. The republicans in the Senate wouldn't even give Judge Garland a hearing. I call that an abrogation of their oath of office. They should all have been impeached. The constitution has been violated by republicans.
The last election was rigged...not so much by Russians, but by right wing corporations running the vote counting machines in concert with their republican accomplices. What we currently have is a dictatorship.
Sorry, but the truth isn't pleasant.
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS
23
“Sorry, but the truth isn't pleasant.”
And the thoughts you stated here are opinion - Not fact, not the truth.
3
So, in reality .Roe and intentionally Margret Sanger ,Democrat instituted Planned Parenthood ect. are meant institutionally to eliminate the overburden from the welfare society so that it doesn't collapse under it's own weight.In doing so ,the DNC unintentionally began to dilute it's own voter base and viable political sustainability.Henceforth open borders began in earnest during the 1980's.Now ,as mentioned states rights would be the only solution to dissolving Roe.
5
The Supreme Court for some time before Scalia's death comprised six Catholics and three Jews (of varying levels of observance). No protestants (white and Anglo Saxon, or otherwise); no Muslims or weird cultists; and, of course, no outed atheists or agnostics. The entire "conservative" majority of five were Catholics, along with one member of the minority. Gorsuch checked off as an Episcopalian when he was nominated; but he was raised Catholic and converted to his wife's "faith" upon marriage, as I understand it. And somehow it's inappropriate or contrary to our values (gauche?) to consider the religious affiliation of nominees? Amazing.
7
I do not want a fervent Catholic on the Supreme Court. I do not want a woman who does not believe in women on the Supreme Court. By the same token, I do not want a man on the Supreme Court who cannot put his personal beliefs aside either. I do not know Barrett and I do not want to know her. I was once a Catholic and I do not want that religion dictating my life to me. trump is showing his complete disrespect for our Constitution and his complete lack of respect for women. America deserves better than the currnt administration and the current choice of nominees to the Court.
8
Our country can't have its constitution interpreted through the dictates coming from the Vatican.
5
Thanks for for the blast of nostalgia, Randy. I'm old enough to remember people saying the exact same thing during the 1960 election about JFK.
3
No, JFK was questioned about it, and rightly so. And then he was elected.
Today, we have five religious men on the Supreme Court whose decisions are often influenced by their beliefs rather than the law.
Democrats will oppose anyone Trump nominates.
6
You are thinking of Trump's behavior with Obama atop his unbelievable lying about him. Mr. Garland was the one not given a hearing by the hypocrite Mr. McConnell.
4
I would hope so, but I wouldn't count on it.
Then why doesn’t he put forward a well-qualified moderate like Merrick Garland? Keep everyone happy except far right fanatics
1
She's a a self-described "handmaiden," while her hubby is a "head." Pretty revolting, and worrisome. You be the judge. Is this what you want in your government, one that supposed to be secular and diverse? If you aren't totally panic-stricken by these off the wall religious extremists, you haven't been paying attention. Get your passports ready.
13
Political views aside, Amy Coney Barrett does not change the religious composition of the Supreme Court: 5 Roman Catholics, 3 Judaics (possibly of the Reform Judaism), and one indeterminate Episcopalian or Roman Catholic.
3
No experience. No need to apply. I heard Joe the fake plumber is looking for a gig.
2
The notion that Trump is "licking his chops" (or even "foaming at the mouth, panting heavily") about the opportunity to nominate a second SC justice in order to "make his foes squirm" sadly demonstrates that the Judicial Branch of our system is just as political (and thus broken and corrupt) as the other two branches.
I imagine that Coney-Barrett will prove herself to be just as narrow-minded and hypocritical as Scalia.
7
The Handmaid's Tale Indeed. Imagine this fanatical woman on the court and, after an impeachment, Mike Pence and his wife he calls "Mother" in the White House! The silent majority Senators, who have been silent on nearly all of the abuses perpetrated by the Mad King have a duty to this nation and need to start fulfilling it.
1
Who is worse, Mr. Trump, or those who let themselves be used by him to further their own careers and agendas? Both Mr. Trump and his accomplices are showing that the swamp is a bottomless pit.
1
She’s no different than the activist justice Sotomayor.
6
Personally I'm praying Trump nominates this brilliant, qualified woman to #SCOTUS. I'm I'm further hoping that Douthat's warnings of a cultural apocalypse prove prescient. Bring it baby.
2
Oh my. A woman, not from the coasts and therefore more representative of our country, who is not only firmly religious but lives her beliefs and has two adopted children. This is a judge only an intolerant Democrat would oppose, and it reminds us again that for Democrats "diversity" is a priority only if each and every political litmus test is passed. Such hypocrisy.
4
More people live on the coasts than elsewhere so how could someone not from the coasts therefore be more "representative"? Also as an adopted child I am deeply offended by the attitude of people like you who think in adopting children the person doing the adopting is doing a good deed instead of merely making a family.
2
No truly intelligent person believes in a god or a religion. Such ideas are patently absurd and should only be used as measure for gullibility.
2
There is only one question that I would like to see put to Amy Coney Barrett (or any other person nominated by DJT): "If it is shown that Donald Trump conspired with Russia to affect the outcome of the 2016 election to his benefit and/or is impeached and convicted, will you resign from the SCOTUS given that your appointment to the Court would qualify as fruit of the poisoned tree?"
12
We must have massive marches by women to defend their liberties. To show congress the direction to the unemployment line.
Activists need to get their act in gear.
If not get ready for hijabs for American women.
While barefoot. And learn to not to dare raise your eyes.
2
But who will feed the trolls in the Senate and in the House? It won't be all that difficult to identify who they are. They are everyone. Schumer included. It's time for the tears, Chuck. Sadness is upon us all.
2
Ms. Barrett could worship the groundhog in my backyard for all I care. Her views on important issues such as equality, women’s rights, voting rights, climate change, science, and money in politics are the things that matter, among others.
Does she inderstand the science of evolution, for instance? Does she understand the importance of voting rights for all our citizens? Does she believe that climate change is real and affecting our lives daily?
I believe her views on life may be as limited and pedestrian as Mr. Trump’s, and that is why he might nominate her.
3
Remember "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station..."
So why aren't the Blue States separating and establishing their own Executive, Judiciary, and Congress, and Military?
Why do we wring our hands and let them tread on us? Where is the firewall?
Why are we funding the Red States whose stated goal is to destroy us?
Now is the time, if there ever was a time to break free. We need to make our own future untainted by Trump.
2
Perhaps the best possible outcome would be to have Mr. Trump nominate Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court. Given her young age and religious zeal, together with the other conservative judges on the Court, perhaps by the time she retires, the American public would have become so soured to religion, that adherence to any religion would be a definite disqualification for any candidate to any public office. If such an outcome occurs that would be a good thing.
2
This restates why my belief is that justices vote and support their own limited views of life and living. It is extremely rare for their rulings to transcend to the wisdom of the greater good of the Republic and different citizens of this country.
Add to this mix the very partisan political views of these judges.
1
This same religious question was posed nearly sixty years ago when John F. Kennedy, noted Catholic , ran for the presidency. Although I was a mere infant, my love of history drew me to this pivotal political moment. The recipe for any judge or any public arbiter includes, but is not limited to, integrity, logical reasoning, intelligence, compassion and a dispassionate adherence to the rule of law. These men and women must strive to divorce themselves of personal religious beliefs or tenets that may rear their head in issues before the bar. We now have a president that treats the rule of law as a mere suggestion, at best. He has installed an administration that reflects his disrespect for our laws and the institutions created to protect our nation. Fortunately, as of now, the rule of law will limit the real time effect of this president and this administration on our nation. The framers and founders created resilient institutions that would stand the pressures of man's fallibility. Trump will present the ultimate test of the framers and founders efforts. However, an Associate Justice on SCOTUS presents a more troublesome problem. The decisions that they make have the power that can pose an existential threat to our nation. SCOTUS 's influence on who we are as a nation has a fundamental effect on the daily lives of all citizens. The nation ultimately trusted President Kennedy. Can we afford to trust this president and this administration ? Our future is in question.
3
I thought I lived and pledged allegiance to a country where the separation of “Church and State” protects EVERYONE’S religious liberty. I also thought conservatives would want to “conserve” these principles championed by Thomas Jefferson, among others.
John Kennedy had to make it clear that he would put his pledge to uphold the Constitution above his strong Catholic faith when it came to matters of state. Why can’t we ask the same of prospective Justices for lifetime appointments?
15
It's unfortunate that Sen. Feinstein worded her questions so awkwardly at Judge Barrett's confirmation hearing. Judge Barrett should be grilled about her view of the First Amendment Establishment Clause. The issue isn't her personal faith, whatever it may be, but whether she will use her government position to force her religious views and practices on all of us. Her doing so would deprive us of freedom to pursue our own religious practices.
For any nominee for a judgeship at any level, giving evasive non-answers or the excuse that a case may come before them for refusal to answer should be an automatic deal-breaker. We the public and the senators who vote on their confirmations are entitled to know their views on important issues that they may be called upon to decide.
7
ch--Feinstein should be in a home, whether her own or some institution. She has all the signs of dementia. Plus she's an idiot, who hurts her party. I hope California will replace her with Keven de Leon. He's not a progressive, more's the pity, but he's still got all of his mind. Remember, the party does not endorse her.
President Kennedy famously declared his fidelity to the Constitution over his fidelity to the Pope. Judge Barrett does the opposite. But while her fidelity to the Pope is not the specific norm in the USA, her commitment to religion over nation is not. As Mike Pence said, he is a Christian first, as are his fellow evangelical Christians.
This is exactly the issue, in my opinion. I disagree with Frank Bruni. I believe that the First Amendment guarantees us freedom from the religions of others. As we have seen, and as Justice Kagan has written, Christianists in the USA have used another part of that Amendment to demand that their rights to free speech should allow them to impose their religious beliefs and overrule the actual rights and freedoms of the rest of us.
We are in dangerous territory. There is nothing that made America a different nation that is more important than freedom from religion and the clear separation of church and state. How ironic that an irreligious would-be autocrat like Donald Trump would play to religious zealotry to further his plans to eliminate democratic opposition to his future one party state and create Wahhabism in America.
12
I am 72 year old woman. For all my life women have not had the same rights guaranteed to them as men have. They have had to fight for admission to the military academies. They have had to fight for control over their own bodies and health. They have had to fight for equal pay. The ERA still has not been approved. Now Roe vs Wade will surely be overturned if a new Justice for SCOTUS is a far right conservative. While we may need only one Republican to vote against a Justice that would vote to overturn Roe Vs Wade, given that all Democrats stood firm against the candidate, we have to keep in mind there are some Democrats who could vote with the Republicans. The only real chance as women and progressives to prevent a far right conservative from being nominated as Justice for SCOTUS, is to hope that the nomination of a SCOTUS Justice is delayed until after the election. As pointed out, all the nominees Trump has lined up he chose to infuriate Democrats, and buttress his support from his base. Trump has given no thought to, nor does he care about what his choice for SCOTUS means to women whose very lives may depend on that choice if abortion becomes illegal.
As for Amy Coney Barrett how exactly would she be able to not have her devout religious convictions influence any of her decisions? Which would come first? Her religion or the law as it stands?
8
The two sides of abortion have never satisfactorily provided for me at least, a convincing argument to support their positions. For me, the issue is the consequences for our society, our people and our nation if or when either of the two sides prevails in the upcoming political showdown. In the debate of this critical social issue I would hope that both sides argue for their positions by presenting their view of the consequences for the United States when either of the two positions prevails or even consider an in between position, less a compromise than a critical path to resolution paved by research and scholarship. Abortion is currently legal but it is the obligation of the pro choice legions to continually study their position, research the consequences, look at alternatives and continually review the outcomes. This battle over a Supreme Court nominee is a good place to start.
After reading many of the comments I just want to make clear that Catholics are many and varied. For example, Justices Sotomayor and Thomas are both Catholics, but from what I have read about them, they are not practicing Catholics. Many of us, like many of the Jewish faith, identify as Catholics, but our political views vary widely. Many of us are obviously not opposed to birth control and many too are not opposed to abortion. Our actual practices and our beliefs and dogmas are quite separate in many cases. Some may say that we are then not Catholics or not Catholic enough, but we still identify as such and have sent our children to Catholic schools, celebrate Christian holidays, etc. I would not like to see Barrett or for that matter any other Trump appointee on the Supreme Court, but neither am I worried that abortion is going to be outlawed any time soon. Let's focus on bigger things like getting money out of politics and health care (truly affordable ) for all!
2
It is public brain poison to pay any official respect whatsoever to the preposterous claim that some kind of spirit pulled something out of nothing by uttering a few magic words and thus created the universe.
3
All we hear about is Roe, Roe, Roe. That isn't even close to the most damage a right wing court can do. Even with Kennedy there the rights of unions to organized have been severely curtailed. A right wing court will make a mockery of workers rights. A rightwing court may undo the Civil Rights Act even as they have kneecapped the Voting Rights Act. I see de facto Jim Crow just around the corner.
By the beginning of the 20th Century, America was very much a plutocracy. The crazy billionaires that own the Republican Party, and some of the Democrats, could care less about the culture wars. Their interest is control by the top 1%. A right wing court will give them that control, even as right wing courts did from the Civil War to the Great Depression.
What about Roe? The Democrats paid almost as big a political price for supporting Roe, as they did with Civil Rights. At least with Civil Rights the Democrats earned the loyalty of those most affected. That is not so with Roe. Roe has been nothing but an albatross for Democrats with no political payoff. It's been low hanging fruit for Republicans. That is why the USSC will never overturn Roe. The Court will just let Red States create impossible conditions for Roe to function in those states.
2
Nullifying Roe is just the leading edge of a religious coup d'état.
May I remind everyone that Justice Kennedy was a catholic as to the best of my knowledge are 3 other members of the court. So Catholicism is not the question here is the ability of the next Justice to fairly support the constitutional rights of a free people. And I suggest that contrary to the courts current opinion that corporations are people in the citizens united case. This made 2 classes of people. One living and breathing citizens that need clean air and water etc. to survive. The other that doesn't have to die or live in harmony with its neighbors.
So rather than questioning what religion a candidate professes, I believe they need to tell us how they feel about voters rights, health care, environment, global warming, public education , social security, care for dependent children, immigration, death penalty,and free press.
6
I recall my Catholic classmates showering me with salt crystals for weeks after I told my fifth grade public school class that I believed the universe to be a self-organizing process that functions automatically without thinking, like crystals growing out of solutions.
3
It has become nearly impossible for me to conclude otherwise that Trump's motivation in every decision he makes is to divide Americans against each other no matter the circumstances.
In every aspect he seeks nothing other than to create friction, argument and hatred.
The question I always ask myself as each new episode unfolds is, Why? Why is he insistent upon inflicting damage, division, conflict no matter the issue?
If it is not a compulsion to destroy America, then what is it, and what is motivating that?
14
One formerly unimaginable but currently imaginable reason is that we have a Manchurian (so-called) president.
3
You have a duty to your readership to write at least one column, preferably several, taking a deep dive into this "People of Praise" religious group, which has been described as a "cult", and Barrett's relationship to it. Its current leader has publicly made it clear that abortion is emphatically, totally, rejected by it. What other constitutionally protected rights have been denounced by "People of Praise" also? Gay rights? The separation of church and state?
It has been disturbing enough that the agenda of extreme evangelicals has penetrated the White House. The thought that yet a further radical religious perspective might infiltrate the decision making of our Supreme Court is completely unacceptable and contrary to fundamental law.
22
As much as I thought Feinstein should have been more temperate in her remarks, I can well understand her concerns.
As a Roman Catholic growing up most of my religious training from 12 years in Catholic schools consisted of indoctrination into some pretty incredulous beliefs. We were constantly warned that if we questioned the tenets of the Church we would be committing a mortal sin. We were constantly exposed to propaganda from the Nuns and the Priests whether the lesson was history, geography, math (yes math) or religious studies. We were taught that babies born out of wedlock were never going to make it to heaven.
We were taught to go forth and propagate, so that the Catholicism would be spread, whether or not a family could economically take care of their families, "God would provide".
Birth Control was a mortal sin and cause for excommunication.
These falsehoods are still being taught today.
Barrett also belongs to a Fundamentalist movement. Which begs the question "can she keep the Separation of Church and State" in mind when she hears cases.
When a person's Religious beliefs cause them to join a Fundamentalist sect, it can't help but make me wonder what kind of legal judgement they will make when it comes to issues such as Roe vs Wade, Gender rights, Women's rights.
This could be a strong argument for Judges having to make sure that Religion and State Separation is a mandatory pledge that all judges must make before they are appointed to the Supreme Court.
21
Bigotry is alive and well in America. Logical thinking is dead. The Klan is in Progressive robes. Gee, is one ever too Jewish, too black, too white, too atheistic, too female, too male? Does such never influence their lives or ways of thinking? Or, is it just that hate speech is o.k. if it opposes Christians or Catholics?
4
The moment a judge admits to allowing her religion to dictate her legal positions, she’s not qualified.
That’s not bigotry, it’s fact.
3
You entirely miss the point.
The Supreme Court 'should' represent the society at large.
Currently, 6 of the 9 justices are Catholic, and the remaining 3 are Jewish.
Where's the aetheist?, the agnostic?, the non-evangelical Protestant?
This bigotry against religion, this is against moving in the direction of a theistic monarchy.
2
Religious people do not construct philosophies from fundamental principles. They shape their minds to external admonishments. They eschew the human obligation to use their brains.
5
Barrett is obviously brighter than Feinstein, who so clearly opened herself up to the query "can you separate your job as a US Senator from your Judaism?" That response, a tit-for-tat, would have been properly labeled anti-Semitic. A cosmopolitan culture that lauds, and places in a leading museum as a gift from a person of Jewish faith, a Catholic religious symbol made of elephant dung has truly over-reached and the consequences are apparent.
Judaism is a religion founded on laws and ethics not dogma or blind beliefs without questions or debate. Calling out Feinstein, with no knowledge of her devotion to her religion is a specious and revealing comment on one’s own prejudice and bias.
2
Actually, Feinstein would answer that question in the affirmative because we liberals don't bring our faith to the office or school or the Supreme Court-we leave it in our hearts where it belongs.
1
Please explain the elephant dung.
Judge Barrett chose to bring 5 children into the world and to help and protect 2 more by adopting them. No doubt this is galling to the culture of death that so, so many of those on the left have invested in and are deeply committed to. Their commitment to abortion and the continued genocide of never to be born African American children is as devout an act as the most devout act of a Catholic who believes in the sanctity of life. And Ms Barrett is intellectually qualified—you don’t get a clerkship with a Supreme Court Justice unless you are very smart and accomplished. She would be a great choice.
4
“Qualified?” She’s been on the bench for eight months. Give me a break.
2
VOTE!
7
I went to Bosnia with the U.S. Army to make christians stop killing muslims. So much forThou Shalt Not Kill.
Children don’t pick their parents. So what about the ones who come to crummy schools and didn’t eat last night and who are sick? And who live in a car or lead painted apartment? You were irresponsible to pick rotten poor minority parents. Solution? PICK BETTER PARENTS.
I thought we solved the church state problem. You live your christian life in freedom that I guaranteed to defend when I took the oath. And is Donald Trump the model christian? Whoops. Just lost my lunch.
Do not stuff your values down my throat.
When men start having children then they should be able to weigh in on abortion.
Until then….wasting your seed should be regulated not by the Department of Agriculture but by the Supreme Court! Haha.
Now that is political humor!
12
Let no hit and run daddy escape without paying child support. Paternity is no longer difficult to establish.
1
Editorial Note: Judge Kavanaugh is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, not the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Those are two very different courts, and copy editors should catch such an error.
2
Aside from her right wing nut views, there are too many catholics on the court now.
11
Wow, quite a few commentors here are just totally ignorant about the largest religious group in the US - the Catholics. Almost all US Catholics are Roman Catholics, which is the "cult" she is in. This is so closed minded calling us a cult. One in five Americans is a Roman Catholic.
The US has never loved Catholics. This was a Protestant country. People thought the Pope would run the US if they found their way into politics. Well, there are Catholics in every part of government, now. Did you notice? We're all in a cult, you know.
Oh, and I guess you're ignorant of this - The Supreme Court is mostly Catholics, today. Four Catholics, one Protestant, three Jewish people, one other. This just shows how much more accepting the US is today - the Court was dominated by Protestants for centuries.
We're one fifth of the population. If you could stop hating on us for being "breeders" and "regressive", that would be much appreciated. And we're not religious nuts. Some of the most hard working, straight laced people you will ever meet are typically Jewish people or Catholics.
This court is going to pull the US closer to the right after decades of liberalization and making people who think abortion is a sin pay for it. Unborn citizens are still citizens.
I hope she gets the nomination.
4
The job as a Justice should be to interpret and uphold the Constitution -
and safeguard the freedoms of all without bias or religious influence, not to move it right or left
2
Yes. Jews are an extremely well educated and successful minority in this country. We are also overwhelmingly Democrats and we support a woman’s right to control her own body, reproductively and otherwise.
1
And quite a few commenters are, like yourself, still unclear how the Constitution works in terms of religious freedom AND freedom from religion. This country was founded on this simple principle that 1 in 5 citizens are trying to exploit to serve their own political (not religious) ends and you are not a majority by a long shot. Your beliefs can easily be your business in America, how is that for a taste of Freedom. But, they cannot be forced to be my beliefs or be made to make me live your way, this is why we don't listen to you or find ourselves not respecting your faith.
1
Barrett reveals the truth about "conservatives;" they are a religious cult, previously secretly working to make America a theocracy, now openly working to achieve that end.
9
Amy Coney Barrett's religious affiliation should play no role in the consideration of her fitness to serve as a justice of the Supreme Court. But her beliefs regarding the role of god's law in man's court are critical.
Does she--like Vice President Mike Pence, former Chief Justice of Alabama Roy Moore and many other evangelicals--believe god's law trumps man's? If so, would she apply god's law if she were required to decide a case where man's was in conflict? What written texts would she consider in applying god's law in such cases? The Torah? The Koran? The New Testament? Others? Does she grant the possibility that reasonable minds--including reasonable minds infused with ardent religious faith--could differ with respect to the content and parameters of god's law? How would she resolve such differences?
The United States may be "one nation, under god," but for better or for worse and for all its inherent fallibility, our republic is built on law devised by man. Do we really want a mere mortal deciding some other law should take its place?
3
While it's distressing to imagine a court without a swing vote, it's coming. Overturning Roe v. Wade could end up being a good thing. There are a lot of women in the South who desire access to health services not dictated by (mostly) white (mostly) men. Perhaps they will show up to vote with something they desperately need on the table.
3
Eight months on the bench is not a lot of time to get a sense of how someone will function on the SC. So, it is good that you focus on her academic career. If she's published extensively we could have a lot of material to work through. As for her religion, I get why it's a bit of a minefield politically. But someone who has gone to the lengths she has to put religion at the center of her life is obviously very influenced by the culture -- and yes dogma -- at work within that community. Surely it's a worthy line of inquiry, especially since this Catholic group she belongs to has very strong views about how we should all live.
6
I'd ask Joe Donnelly this: what is the point of serving as a senator when the very basis of the country is fading faster than an Indiana factory? If we don't hold on to a separation of church and state, there is no more America as we know it.
He ought to vote against her, whether he loses the election or not. Country over party, Joe.
6
I am a Catholic and I strongly advise against supporting any public figure who would place their personal religious beliefs ahead of the US Constitution. Legal abortions simply reflect the fact that if a woman wants an abortion she will have one - whether it be legal or not. It is HER deciision, not yours or mine. The State recognizes this "fact of life" and upholds legal abortions as a "lesser evil", shall we say, than buying stock in coat hanger corporations. If you don't believe in abortions - don't have one. If I may, I should like to suggest to my fellow Catholics that birth control prevents a lot of abortions from becoming a necessity. (Most Catholic couples have already discovered this "truth".)
7
The GOP has effectively made abortion a political focal point since Roe v Wade. If they don’t have it as their rallying cry, will they be able to turn out voters at election time? The problem with getting everything you want is that it leads to boredom and complacency.
1
Unless I've missed it, I'm surprised someone hasn't made the obvious comment (with apologies to the old orange juice commercial). "Serena Joy--she's not just for books, movies and TV any more."
Actually, Mr. Bruni, the Progressives would needlessly and divisively ignite a battle over religion. And, as with all the Progressive over-reaching, they would lose.
2
Barrett brings nothing new to the Court. It's always been a divide between the secular who support the separation of Church & State, & the religious ideologies who put their religious beliefs before all else.The Baker who would not serve the Gay men was an example of this, so was chick filet.Trump may not be an intellect , but he can add & subtract,& he knows the majority of the voters are Bible thumpers.Meet the next Supreme Court Judge Amy Barrett, & the beginning of a theocracy.
2
So as a devout Catholic she opposes the death penalty, right? And will side with the American bishops on immigration issues.
3
People of Praise.....please do an in-depth report. Aspects of this group are very concerning.
10
Like AG Jeff Sessions, quoting Scripture from which "Bible", to justify his stance on immigration policy, I'm sure Amy Conant Barrett will quote "uncited Scripture", from the Catholic Bible or the New Revised Edition, in her legal opinions to the bench.Maybe it is the children's illustrated bible that she will be using.
2
And there are women I know that don't vote and advise against voting because "it just does not matter". I await their comments.
3
Feinstein's remarks definitely offend the Religious Freedom
of the Bill of Rights. I believe that Dershowitz indicated that
it did. Being Catholic should not be a criteria for dismissal.
1
Nonsense.
2
If Judge Barrett has a Judeo-Christian orientation, she should be aghast at the treatment of immigrants (There is an edict to welcome the stranger...do right by the poor....take care of the sick, the widowed.) This will be a test of the strength of the two competing ideologies in our culture..and especially within the republican party.
Judeo-Christian beliefs?
Belief in unregulated capitalism?
Judge Barrett? or Judge Kavanaugh?
People of faith are not particularly liked or admired by the liberals. Just read the many anti-religious and especially anti-Catholic responses on this comment board.
It was the New York Times that "outed" Amy Coney Barrett's association with the People of Peace movement. Most of us had never even heard of this group before it was mentioned in the NY Times articles. This was stated on Ms. Barrett's wiki page. She was not the one to mention her affiliation with this group. It was the NYTimes that pointed this out.
There are still those of us in America today who admire Ms. Barrett and her dedication to her Catholic faith. She is not afraid to mention she is a practicing Catholic and that takes an extreme amount of courage. She is my new role model as a Catholic.
I do hope she is considered for a seat on the Supreme Court. She would make an excellent justice and would follow the law according to our constitution. If I could vote, she would have mine. She would be superb with her outstanding credentials.
1
But the majority of Americans aren't Catholic and her appointment would keep the number of Catholics on the Court at 5 (6 if you count Gorsuch who was raised a Catholic but attends his wife's Episcopal church.) How about a Protestant?...representing the majority of American Christians? Or, how about an Atheist, or better yet a Deist, which many of our Founding Fathers were?
1
Many here thank The Times for making Barrett's affiliation with the radical religious group public and hope they do their job and further investigate the group and their aims. Some people in the press still do the job of a free press, which is to help keep Americans free. You want something else, go live in Putin's Russia.
1
Reporting facts about public figures is not “outing”. It’s reporting.
Outing is making the private public. The nominee’s memberships and affiliations are and should be public information.
1
Trump will nominate a conservative of some sort. It is however inappropriate for a majority of the high court to be Roman Catholic, as it has been. The country is entitled to a court that is not beholden to one denomination, regardless of its merits. I would say the same if they were all Holy Rollers.
2
I certainly hope he has run these candidates by with Sean Hannity. I mean, it would be terrible if he had to actually read something.
3
It's not exactly reassuring that a president who thrives on controversy, is responsible for picking a person for one of the most important positions on this country's judicial landscape.
And if being female, blonde, white, under 50, deeply religious and conservative are the only qualifications a candidate needs, besides being able to 'drive liberals crazy' -- then we have fallen very far from the ideals the founding fathers set for this nation.
SAD.
6
True, but you're taking Frank Bruni's word for all of this. I didn't hear all of this screaming, or witness all that much handwringing, when Justices Kagen and Sotomayor were elevated to SCOTUS, despite the fact that everybody knew exactly where they stood on this particular subject. Speaking of which, isn't it amazing that ROE V. WADE seems to be the only subject to significantly rear its head at SCOTUS confirmations. It's almost as if the only subject on the menu was (from the Left) a woman's right to choose, and (from the Right) the wholesale slaughter of innocents. Is that all there is, and there ain't any more? Frightening.
OK, I'll bite.
We already have far too many Catholics on the Supreme Court.
I am sick and tired of people's religious beliefs being foisted on the rest of us.
Conservatives are big on posing as to what the Constitution means. What is does NOT mean is people using their personal faith as a barometer for how they reach their decisions.
7
I'm old enough to watch history repeat itself. In the 1960 Presidential election, John Kennedy was scurrilously attacked - repeatedly - as not to be elected because, as a Roman Catholic, he would be "ruled from Rome".
So here it is again, regarding potential SCOTUS candidate Barrett. This is nothing more than anti-catholic discrimination rearing its ugly head again. It's classic religious bigotry, now masquerading as "protecting women's rights". And it's a religious test for public appointed office, which is highly inappropriate.
It's inappropriate because, following the same line of thinking, maybe we shouldn't have Jewish people on SCOTUS, because they'll be governed by their religion's tenets or their particular group's goals. Or Muslims, or Hindus' in fact, only secularists need apply. Like I said, classic religious bigotry, leading to a very bad end.
Have we not risen above this?
And, obviously, shame on all the "liberals" pushing this line.
5
This is a false equivalency. We need to be clear that any nominee is and will be free of religious prejudice from the bench. Freedom FROM religion has equal weight as freedom OF religion. We must ask these questions in order to determine her perspective, shame on anyone who seeks to blame anyone else for doing due diligence when so much in this country is at stake. Don't blame liberals, thank them for protecting the Constitution.
1
Nominating another Catholic to a Supreme Court where Catholics are already more than adequately represented is something Kennedy would never have gotten away with. The times have changed. Conservatives refuse to acknowledge or embrace the change.
Yes, sure... that must be why "liberals" put a catholic named Sotomayor on the bench. Because they hate all Catholics. Got it.
Have you noticed we have never had an Atheist on the bench?! How about that bigotry.
By the by, here is some reading links of your Catholics hating upon Ms. Kagin because...she was Jewish and liberal.
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/deaconsbench/2010/05/catholic-group-...
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2014/03/28/justice-kagan-you-gotta-serv...
2
As a devout Catholic, Barrett’s life is dictated by mythology and superstition. Hardly a strong qualification for SCOTUS. She’s clearly happy with women in second class roles in the RC church. A Justice should believe in equality. She supports her exclusive male clergy in spite of massive sexual abuse of young people. Looks like a dangerous choice.
8
Another chapter in "Days of our Lives In The White House". Just campaigning , never mind governing for all of US.
2
She is imminently qualified and whatever attacks the democrats choose will look like a blatantly partisan vicious attack on a woman - Tread carefully and don't let Feinstein attack her again because she is catholic
2
She may be nominated imminently. Whether or not qualified eminently remains to be seen.
But, you know, dogs and fleas. The likelihood of Trump nominating anyone worthy is vanishing small.
2
I am in complete agreement with the part of your post that says she is imminently qualified although I understand that it was not what you meant when you wrote it.
People of Praise, an intense covenant-based charismatic Christian group cofounded by Barrett's father, husband, is cult-like in certain respects. It is entirely legitimate to ask questions about the nature of the "covenant" Barrett has entered into.
4
We are not in Kansas. We are in the alternate Universe where lies are truth and propaganda is reality. The Republican Party depends on Fox News/Breitbart and their clones to control the minds of nearly half of the electorate. All the science, economics, statistics, verifiable facts have nothing to do with what the Republican base believes. They have joined a new religion in this Alternate Universe with Trump as the main diety. It is not so much Orwellian where "up is down" and "black is white, it is modeled on the Big Lie Propaganda method and it is working for Trump and his Republican handmaidens.
There are three kinds of voters that chose Trump: racists and bigots, the uninformed and low information voters, and the Evangelists for whom defeating Roe v. Wade overcomes every other Christian value.
However, no true Christian can support Trump who has proven that he violates every principle of human decency with his massive lying, ripping families apart, and his history of rampant sexual predatory behavior. Only those so-called fundamentalists who deny the word of their God in favor of political power can stand with a man as evil as Trump.
5
Who in politics have the bravery to express the thoughts of a growing sector of the population who neither attend church nor believe the absolute veracity of the Bible. Talk about a third rail! Hypocrisy knows no bounds on either side of the aisle. As an agnostic, it is a disappointment to witness the continuation of patriarchal gaslighting that has hobbled humanity since time immemorial. Enough!
4
Reason Magazine argued that her writings have pushed back on their right-wing libertarian ideology and called for more judicial restraint and deference to the legislative branch in issues like anti-trust. Minus Roe v Wade, she may turn out to be much more of a Sandra Day O'Connor than an arch-right justice like Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Trump would be wicked smart if he picks her. One more case of him playing chess while the feckless Democrats guilelessly hop along moving their checkers. Donnelly would have to vote for her. So would Manchin. And Feinstein's anti-Catholic screed will come back to haunt the party. Imagine if she had attacked a Muslim in that way. But if the Republicans were hoping they'd get a strict originalist, they may be in for disappointment.
1
I can’t stand Trump but this entire discussion regarding Roe vs. Wade is ridiculous. If they are qualified they should be nominated. Period. Both Republicans and Democratic’s are an embarrassment on this issue each time a nomination comes up. The nominations for the Court have become a circus.
Religion should not matter.
2
Exactly. So, since she has proudly stated that it impacts her written decisions, she is unqualified.
2
Amy Coney Barrett must be a most ambitious woman to bear and adopt children and also serve as a judge. There are more reasons than that of Roe v. Wade in consideration of her appointment to the Supreme Court. The matter of Mueller's investigation into Trump's election is primary and should be remembered. The womb, the issue of tissue has become as primary to this current time in history as that of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, considered important enough to be discussed at the Council of Nicea in what year, 12 something or other? What a strange country the USA has become, this country with a Jefferson who insisted along w/others to be secular, that the nation would not have a national religion. Many were deists. They were intellectuals and thoughtful men. We have survived even through our own depradations toward others, particularly the first who were here, native Indians. Next were the slaves brought here. Finally the Civil War and the slow slough to Civil Rights. At this present time in history, we could put Trump's name in place of King George's in our document of this nation's founding.
1
Despite the presence of a growing progressive wing, the Democratic Party in general appears to be leftish only because the Republican Party has traveled so far to the right over the past thirty or so years. Ms. Barrett perfectly reflects that rightward movement. People in comments have criticized the attention that's been given to her religion; but it's she who has made her religion a part of the conversation. And of course, it provides a handy way for the administration to dismiss any legitimate critique of her qualifications for the SCOTUS. This process is in keeping with administration's general approach to governance -- consult with the far-right think tanks and political organizations, front a controversial nominee, aggressively attack any challenge and characterize critics as "elite" partisans or worse. Then use Twitter and the spin specialists to amplify the chaos to a point where it drowns out rational debate. In the end, whether the nominee is Ms. Barrett or someone else, he or she will reflect the views of the Republican Party's most right-wing elements and be used by the president to pummel his political adversaries. The president will certainly strut and preen, while the country moves farther from its allegedly cherished ideals.
6
Does Joe Donnelly's desire to keep his seat become more important than the future well being of the country? We need strong democratic representation when the confirmations begin regardless of those nominated.
Another force to be confronted will be Senator Mitch McConnell who will do his masters wishes to move the nomination through as quickly as possible.
The future of America is at stake here.
8
I'm an atheist and believe the First Amendment protects both the practice of and freedom from religion. So I'd prefer an atheist nominee. Not going to happen.
Nonetheless, I worry that we assume the worst of some of Trump's potential nominees. Barrett, for example, is not likely to be a Trump fan, although that should not and will not lead her to refuse a nomination. Her life, albeit inspired partially by irrational religious belief, seems one of decency and generosity. Is it possible that she would bring those traits to the Court?
The "cult" group, People of Praise, seems a bit extreme, but I took the time to read more about it on their website. They at least give lip service to the value of diversity of thought and independent judgment.
I don't mean to invite the inference that I support her candidacy. But I am wary of the political tendency to assume the worst of any of these nominees. On the 4th of July, I'll take the other road and assume the best. Perhaps Barrett, like the man she would replace, values the Constitution over the Bible, and would rule on the basis of the Constitution while being mindful of the values of justice implicit in her faith.
3
Democrats must avoid making an issue of Barrett's Catholicism. They must not walk into that trap. If they do, Barrett could -- and should -- during her confirmation hearing give a speech similar to the one JFK gave, in which he assured voters leery of his Catholicism that he believed in the separation of church and state; and if given the opening to make such a speech, Barrett will embarrass the Democrats. So the Democrats shouldn't go there.
4
As I carefully explained to my eldest son the other day, Roe v. Wade may appear likely to be overturned by this Supreme Court, but what is more likely is a steady chipping away, with more decisions based on states' rights and religious "freedom". In other words, since my son and daughter-in-law live in an exceptionally red state, I can envision a time when my daughter-in-law could have to search for a drugstore where her birth control prescription could actually be filled by a pharmicist who wasn't "conflicted" by his religious beliefs.
If that scenario sounds alarmist and far fetched, I am old enough to remember having to pay my labor and delivery charges for our first child in installments because they weren't covered by my insurance. Why? Because I dared to keep my own coverage after marriage, so my husband and i weren't on the same plan. It was, and is called legislating morality. Many of my Trump supporting family members and friends would love to see that time return. They also strongly believe, as Barrett does, in a strict patriarchal society led by strong, authoritarian men.
It seems a bit odd actually, that many women I know would love to see an Amy Barrett on the Supreme Court, but one of their arguments against Hillary Clinton (among many) was their believe that a woman can't and shouldn't lead. I'm guessing that like their support for Donald Trump, the end will justify the means.
6
In 2016, the Democrats and independents had one job, just one job: show up and vote. And they didn't do it. Now we (all) be wailing and gnashing our teeth out in the wilderness for the near and distant future.
I am heartsick about the state of our nation, the state of our courts and the future of our people, but this was all predictable and avoidable. Years of inattention to the political realities in the country have yielded this result. To change this will require hard work, every day, for the rest of your lives. Better get started.
4
Here's the thing. I could not care less about her religion and personal beliefs. I care about her qualifications. Compared with other candidates on this list of all right-wing candidates, she has few. Yes, I think she and other judges should keep their religion out of their rulings. And I happen to keep their religion out of my personal opinions, too.
6
I find it peculiar that Barrett's essay rewrites the Declaration of Independence from a "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to a "right to life, liberty and property." There is more to happiness than just property. For most people, some minimal amount of property is a necessary condition for happiness. Excessive amounts may interfere.
3
I’m sorry. Your point please? A popular US dictionary writes “The pursuit of happiness is defined as a fundamental right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to freely pursue joy and live life in a way that makes you happy, as long as you don't do anything illegal or violate the rights of others.”
You should learn some American history. The phrase included “property” long before that word was replaced with the pursuit of happiness.
It's past time for the protection of Roe the only litmus test for new SCOTUS justices. If that is the only qualification barometer then 50% of Americans are qualified to sit on the bench. Her credentials are outstanding and her short tenure of bench experience should be of little concern - after all, Elena Kagan never served as a judge until the Supreme Court. Ideologically she is no more 'extreme right' than Kagan and Sotomayor are 'extreme left'. If we are to have no religious litmus test, something that is actually enumerated in the Constitution, then her Catholicism should be of zero consideration.
3
Please explain “extreme”. Please name one extreme opinion penned by Kagan. As far as I know, she’s in good company with Earl Warren.
What you call extreme is to many people perfectly ordinary. Obamacare was entirely constitutional. Corporations have no religious rights. Voters have a right not to be gerrymandered out of the franchise. States are free to fund public sector unions as they see fit. Roe is well decided and settled. How is defending 30-year old law leftist in any sense?
She hasn’t called for workers to control the means of production, has she?
Meanwhile, the right grows ever more extreme. Corporations are granted power over wages, in ionization, birth control, political parties, and the Internet.
Americans by wide majorities favor DACA protection, the right to abortion, higher taxes on the rich, strong environmental control, and universal healthcare. Majorities by definition cannot be extreme. A minority thwarting their will through sheer power is.
Unless she makes it so.,
"She belongs to a mostly Catholic group, People of Praise, whose members make an especially intense commitment to their faith." Where does she, and a THEY, which I presume, without knowing, may also be diverse in many ways, stand regarding personal accountability for both temporary, as well as more permanent, outcomes of one's words and deeds. What are the types, levels and qualities of their complicity enabling an ongoing, daily, WE-THEY culture which violates created, targeted "the others?" How catholic is this potential candidate's understanding of : Mark 4:12 {"they may indeed see but not perceive, may indeed hear but not understand...?," or of the guideline to "take in a stranger?"
The left-progressive Democratic party has long abandoned freedom of religion and replaced it with freedom from religion. Hence one can indeed anticipate the fanatical hatred of Judge Barrett's appointment to the USSC. The US is a deeply religious country with a fanatical anti-clerical left fringe that defines the echo chamber comprised of media,Hollywood and academia. But make no mistake, the fact that this liberal trio has managed to squelch virtually all traditional opinion only creates the fiction of a liberal majority. Mainstream Americans are finally finding their voice in defiance of the dictates of leftwing elitists. And America may indeed become great again despite the shortcomings of its president.
4
I’m not sure how you draw the conclusion that the US is a deeply religious country. A Gallup 2017 survey indicated that more than 50% attend religious services seldom or never. Only 23% said they attend weekly. There is a loud religious minority in this country that for some reason wields power way beyond their numbers.
13
Not really sure where all your animosity towards the "left-progressive Democratic party" is coming from -- but blaming them for freedom from religion is a bit of a stretch.
Another thing.
Unlike Israel, the U.S. has a very clear tenet regarding the separation of Church and State.
You can Google it.
Our Founding Fathers were not religious and many feared religion and made segregating it a prime objective. America is most certainly NOT a “deeply religious country.”
1
Good recap and conclusion, Frank.
As a practical guy, I must ask: is anyone interested in selecting the best person for the job? Yes, ideology is at the center of the public debate. But what about the idea of appointing a person who knows the law the best? A person with the best judicial experience interpreting the Constitution? No?
As to Roe vs Wade, if it is indeed overturned, there will be misery across the country. There will be a modest reduction in abortions, but with today's tools and ease of travel (unless you are Muslim), most who really want one will get one....except for the really poor. There is also the issue of the unwanted children and what they will grow up to be - or do....
However, women's reproductive rights will not be denied in the long run. Future generations will demand it. Inevitable. The Bible Thumping folks who believe in the "sanctity of life" (until kids are born, of course) are ultimately headed for the same dust bin of history that holds slave owners and witch burners.
3
This is a fair-minded and well-reasoned column. And just to be clear, I am a Trump opponent. Nonetheless, Sen. Feinstein's "dogma" remark still burns: She displayed the kind of snide, anti-religious bigotry so common today in our secular leaders. This doesn't mean I would necessarily support Barrett's nomination, but it does mean that I hope she would get a truly fair hearing.
1
Don’t paint the evangelical movement or Christian conservatives with too broad a brush. There are waves of anti-Catholicism within both.
2
Following the eventual revolution Ms. Barrett's religiosity will matter little, or not at all. Justice, both legal and economic, does not rely on a deity in "a nation of laws not men."
The Court is made up of six Catholics and three Jews. John Winthrop rolls in his grave.
On a serious note, it is a bit disturbing that the five conservatives on the Court are all Catholic-indoctrinated, especially at a time when our nation is under siege by those with theocratic, nativist and counter-reformation compulsions. We're already burdened by the Reagan Restoration which has sabotaged any lingering hope for economic justice and balance in the American Experiment - enduring a fractious cultural retrenchment as well just might sink it.
1
Trump did promise to burn down the establishment and he's enjoying the uproar. The GOP needs to be careful because if they confirm a extremely conservative justice to the court they may win the battle but lose the war. When people feel like their way of life is under attack they fight back. Wouldn't it be funny if such an overreach cost them control of Congress who after all writes the laws that the supreme court follows.
1
Personally, I have no interest or desire for the overturning of Roe v Wade. It is, in fact the "unholy" compromise of the twentieth century - a stalemate, as-good-as-it gets decision in the trench warfare of pro-choice/pro-life interests. But, what I do have a gripe with is Mr. Bruni's contention that Supreme Court judge nominees should swear their allegiance to any standing legal decision. First, it would be foolish for any nominee to do so and prior Supreme Court justice nominees (both left and right) have rightfully refrained. Second, even if a nominee "pledges" not to overturn Roe v Wade there is nothing that would keep him/her from reneging on such a "promise" when deciding a future case - and such an action would hardly be an impeachable offense. Third, demanding such assurances are (in my opinion) a political tampering of the judicial process - "give us what we want or else". Confirmation hearings should focus on approaches to judicial decision making, Constitutional interpretation and stare decisis. Ultimately, President Trump is going to get his conservative justice.
3
All judges should swear fealty to stare decisis. It’s a bedrock legal principle.
1
Confirmation hearings are pure kabuki theater. The senate confirms nothing, because nothing is learned. Didn’t Gorsuch refuse to offer a view on Dred Scott?
Democratic senators should stand on principle: answer the question, or be denied confirmation. It is not for the nominee to decide what’s in scope, what questions are acceptable. That is for the senate, and ultimately the electorate, to determine.
As you say, no nominee’s promise has legal meaning. If the nominee can’t say, “I think X was well decided, but the specific circumstances of a particular case might change my mind in some way”, they’re simply not being honest. We could use more honesty on the Court, and less cant.
"The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said ACCURATELY.
Barrett has been on the bench a short time. Supreme Court justices are supposed to be experienced jurists, not neophytes.
And the statement that she belongs to a group of people who are more committed to their faith is disgusting. Who sits in judgment of who is "more committed to their faith?" That's a man-made assertion and assumption. Just another group of people who think they are superior to everyone else because they advertise their religiosity as opposed to the people who actually ARE very religious and just live their lives reflecting the best aspects of their faith in regard to other human beings regardless of what that faith may be.
Let's hope this is one woman who doesn't make it to the SC.
3
Frank, stay on target please. Religion should have no place in the dealings of government, that has already been made clear by the Constitution. Why can't "Liberal freakout" be justified? Or, it is actually a critical assessment of an appointment by elected lawmakers that conservatives want to use to brand liberals as anti-religious when they disagree? From the lowest to highest courts, if it appears the nominee would bring their religious beliefs to the bench they serve as reasoning and argument for their decisions then Americans should be openly concerned and worried. Feinstein was correct in taking the bait, the reason we open up the can of worms is because their are worms inside. Schumer was also correct for focusing on her decisions and experience, both voices mattered. We can't accept Feinstein being labeled as anti-catholic when she is just doing her job in keeping religion out of governing and we must NOT be afraid of fighting against these types of issues with this administration simply because it rallies Trump supporters, for the sake of our nation PLEASE stop suggesting that we do so.
1
Rabid Fundamentalists--Roman Catholic or Evangelical Protestant--are currently quite fond of claiming Christian martyrdom because, having put their ideologies out in the marketplace, they are finding few buyers among those who accept the verifiable facts they are forced to discount or deny. Trump has raised this to an art. Those seeking secular force through invoking the Almighty readily drink the Kool Aid, but not the mentally woke.
All of which is to say, that since the normal distribution curve is generally operative, the momentum of the advocates of alternative reality without thought will likely prevail in this skirmish. The war will be only be won by a major disturbance by an opposite force in November.
1
I've now read through dozens and dozens of comments on Amy Barrett, many of them were witty, snippy, amused, bemused, etc., several of them actually made me laugh. Not many of them were really serious or their writers genuinely upset. This makes me think most people are not very concerned about who is chosen and the confirmation fight will be mostly political theater. Another win for Mr. Trump.
5
Whatever else she may be, Judge Barrett is primarily a pawn in Trump's shell chess game. The Supreme Court was established to be independent, above politics; Trump has made it 100% about politics. He doesn't even try to make excuses for his heinous maneuvering. What shameful behavior on his part, especially in the week of Independence Day! Trump's version of America is not the one I celebrate today - nor any day.
4
Also like Barrett, Joe Donnelly is Catholic, a Notre Dame law school graduate, and is pro-life. I think the pro-life part is the most significant, Donnelly lost my vote when he voted for Neil Gorsuch. Donnelly also supports the Trump administration’s military support for the Saudi’s annihilation of Yemen (how he reconciles that with sanctity of life is unclear). I expect him to vote for anything Trump nominates to the Supreme Court, whether or not it is Barrett.
6
Where were you when the DiBlasio administration knowingly poisoned the children living in NYCHA facilities? I didn’t hear you then??? Start your rights tirade in your own backyard before condemning others.
1
This woman has served on a circuit court for less than a year and she is qualified for lifetime tenure on the most important court in the land? Really? Talk about skipping steps. A form of judicial affirmative action? Shouldn't conservatives be against that? I imagine part of the attraction is that Barrett wouldn't have much in the way of legal opinions to parse. But still, it seems ill advised to put someone with such a skinny resume on the Supreme Court. It is an experiment that we are running now with an ill informed president. Do we want to do it to the judicial system as well?
8
If Democrats want to turn this fight back on the Republicans they should forget the cultural issues and focus on the cases that will be decided in favor of the oligarchs and the swamp dwellers. The Roberts Court was already overly business and .00001% friendly, seating a staunch conservative (translation - reliable GOP hack) will simply drive the court further to the right on those issues and make it clear that the poor and middle class have no standing in the highest court in the land. Talk about how the court helps Republicans pick the pockets of people who work for a living. Talk about how the court helps Republicans destroy the dignity of working people. Talk about how the cort helps Republicans make the world safe for oil companies and polluters and poisonous for our children.
Skip the battle over Roe v Wade, skip the religious issues, disarm the Republicans on the nasty piece of conservative victimhood and take the fight to them where it will hurt them the most.
4
Frank seems to continually advise people how best resist the juggernaut of reaction. He provided a platform for Laura Ingraham in the Times, someone who has massive media exposure, and spoke about how much he cherishes her friendship and the discussions they've had over many, many years. All this and then she calls ICE cages for children "summer camp." And the best Bruni can do is make a parenthetical criticism of her in a column. Obviously tactics are important. And tactics also reveal what type of world we trying to work towards. But equally clearly being a goody goody has next to no influence on his right wing best buddies.
3
If this were a real democracy, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be such a big deal. People’s will would matter
2
Sounds like John Kennedy's campaign in 1960 all over again. I was 10 at the time but I remember the Republican party declaring that he would serve the Pope and not the US citizens/government. I remember they made it a BIG DEAL. I recall that his ability to disambiguate his religiosity from matters of state was called into question by none others than the Republicans (can you say NIXON?). I just didn't remember it exactly enough to quote it so I looked it up:
" In September, John F. Kennedy eloquently confronted the religious issue in an appearance before the Greater-Houston Ministerial Association. He said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President—should he be Catholic—how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." - https://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Campaign-of-1960.aspx
My, oh, my! How the worm has turned! Now not only do we have a Republican claiming that his protestant dogma rule all aspects of his life but he is constant in breaking all the commandments except for killing. At least I think he is exempt from from that but with Trump who really knows?
Well, if Trumpo chooses her she will be installed. When all 3 Branches of Government are holding the noose ready there is really no question.
If I were still living in the USA I would be asking other nations for safe harbor now. The USA is nowhere to live if you're different.
4
By all means quiz her on her ardent Catholicism. Ask her is she thinks the Catholic Church should apologize to Giordano Bruno, burned by the Church in Rome for daring to say that the Earth traveled around the Sun.
Ask her if she thinks the Church has atoned enough for centuries of widespread sexual abuse of children by its clergy.
Ask her is she believes in transubstantiation. The sky should be the limit on asking her what she believes about some of the battier positions of the Catholic Church.
Further, four sitting justices are already Catholic. We don't need a religious majority on our Supreme Court.
4
I constantly wonder how much better this country would be if it had been founded by atheists. For all the good religion fosters in some individuals, it rips away at the greater fabric of society.
3
Many of the Founders were atheists. Unfortunately we don’t seem too interested in what they thought anymore.
2
Wow, almost three full years spent near a courtroom -- two of them beginning as a first year lawyer research assistant to a real judge. Impressive credentials for the highest court in the land.
7
"An earlier version of this article misstated the number of children Amy Coney Barrett has adopted. It is two, not one, " so the correction "states" as if there were no humans involved in the keen reporting that got the number wrong.
the wager here is that its the same hands that have perpetrated the reduction of roe v wade to a latch key that will open a door to its overturn
immediately on the confirmation of amy coney barrett.
cases will have to be brought and made, precedent dismantled or affirmed and, as science leads to more and better prevention of pregnancy, the issue will also heat up health care debate...if debate, as opposed to reduction-to-slogan, is not too great an expectation.
whoever the nominee is, he or she will be thrown into the blades of the bork machine and we will see personal attacks like those spewed againt bork by ted kennedy, embarrassing all democrats and shaming the entire american ideal.
2
Beware of those who wear their religion on their sleeve. Barrett is a zealot within the far right corner of the Roman Catholic faith. Among those folks, dog whistle political views are the norm, not the exception. These are the Catholics who set out rows of wooden white crosses around parish churches for the purpose of attempting to shame passers by about abortion. What else does her rabid Catholicism inform her about birth control, for example, or gay marriage, or a woman’s role in society ( “handmaiden?”)? To ignore or refrain from challenging her religious views would be a huge mistake. Absent lengthy experience on the bench, what else are Senators supposed to ask her about? The weather? It is critically fair to press Barrett because it seems clear that her views are completely intertwined with her radical Catholic beliefs.
5
There may be little of substance that Democrats by themselves can do to block the further descent into anti-democratic right wing corporatism already demonstrated multiple times by the Roberts majority. Nevertheless, they must unite in a vigorous and concerted effort to do just that. There can be no feckless pseudo-Democrat turncoats voting in favor of Gorsuch like Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota . Perhaps out of love of country one or even two patriotic Republican senators will vote to block Trump. Highly unlikely that such senators actually exist but it is the only chance we have to prevent even further descent into the dark Trumpian abyss.
4
Its important to remember that making abortion illegal or unavailable won't end abortions, it will only end safe abortions.
25
Actually, it end cheap ones. The wealthy will always be able to travel to a place where’s its legal, even if that’s Canada, or England. It’s the ordinary person in Alabama or Texas or Ohio or Indiana who’ll have to travel hundreds of miles, and spend a month’s rent, to get an abortion. Or take the risk. Or bear the child.
“The law, in all its majesty, prohibits rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges.”
There used to be agreement in this country regarding the separation of church and state. The GOP destroyed that when it got in bed with the right wing evangelists.
If Barrett's so focused on her brand of Catholicism, let her run for Pope.
5
How ironic that a president who wanders so far from the central message of Christianity (Sermon on the Mount) should nominate a staunch Catholic! Let's hope that if appointed, Mrs. Barrett honors the whole of her moral tradition.
2
The Democrats' solution to all this sturm und drang over the Supreme Court is simply defined: regain control of Congress in 2018, retain control of Congress in 2020 and elect a Democratic President, then increase the number of Supreme Court Justices to eleven (11) and appoint two liberal justices. Problem solved!
7
I just cannot conjure up an image of Trump "interviewing" legal minds for filling the Supreme Court vacancy. How bizarre.
9
Catholic Ireland just voted to legalize abortion. It is a mistake to assume that all American Catholics would support overturning Roe v Wade. If it happens, then we will see Ireland style referendums in many states, for many years. This is a long way from being over.
4
All of this discussion about politics and the high court sickens me. I realize that the justices have political views, but whatever they are, we should only look at their record. If Trump is choosing this person due to her probable approach to Roe, then that is despicable. A heralded conservative viewpoint is that the best person should always get the job. That has always been the argument against affirmative action from the right. But, the right and the left have no interest in higher ideals, just politics and winning. Trump is horrific, but so is the rest of Congress.
2
I think you are all overlooking Trump's sister, well qualified for the court. although 80, she'd extend his hegemony to third branch of government!
Religion does not belong in our government. Period. Remember separation of church and state? We have a secular society able to worship as we please. Law's define our society, not what someone's religion dictates as law. Wake up people! Vote. Get religion out of gov't.
5
I don't think this is a question about not giving Barrett the job because of her faith, its because she can not separate church and state. I really do not care what a person believes nor how they live their life however I don't want those values forced on me. I don't want the law of the land patterned after the Bible, Tanakh or Quran. I don't want to hear politician's or judges talking about god.
5
Religious people should not be allowed to hold public office or to serve in the judiciary. Their belief in a mythological entity and the tenets that mythology inspires will always influence their decisions, and their ideologies will trump any balanced view of how to interpret the law in a manner that is just for all citizens.
It's unimaginable that a radical Catholic---or Jew---or Muslim---could be elevated to the highest court in the land to rule on laws that affect 330 million Americans. We're supposed to live in a democracy, not a theocracy.
6
I find it difficult to imagine how truly religious person can support Donald Trump - a serial liar, a confirmed adulterer, a man who demonizes the ‘stranger’, who cheats workers, whose sole consideration is only and always for himself and amassing more money.
My devout Christian friend once told me she bases many life decisions on WWJD - “ what would Jesus do”. I am not devout but even I know how Jesus lived his life and what he taught is in direct opposition what Trump say and does.
21
We should not talk about religion. But it is hard not to notice that there is a preponderance of Catholics on the bench way beyond their presence in the general population. And why should we not talk about religion when the Catholic Church requires all practicing Catholics to be for forced birth?
2
Here we are in the 21st century still in the grip of religious dogma manufactured, not by God, but by men, calculated to divide and to marginalize anyone who does not swallow the catechism which is itself designed to keep a woman in line five paces behind her earthly lord and master. That a woman, pregnant with the spawn of this dogma, would be installed to at once rip the curtain separating church and state and send women back to an era in which the only way they got to the boardroom was to clean it, is the sort of painful irony not lost on those of us pining for the restoration of liberal democracy.
14
Not another Catholic that ignores most of the Gospel and New Testament with regard to social and economic justice (i.e., the poor vs. the money changers) and focuses on abortion - something never even mentioned in the New Testament. Bet she favors every bit of legal aid that the government can give to corporations and the top 1% while denying any aid to everyone else - especially those at the bottom. On such issues, she would definitely be out of line with Catholicism and her own Pope. In other words, would she really be a "Catholic," or just another non-Christian corporatist promoting the policies of a wealthy right-wing elite? Considering the nature of the economic system in this country, anyone who supports its current form and calls themselves "religious" or "Christian" is suspect.
2
So it is ok to be openly concerned about gun rights but not the separation of church and state? Catholics oppose abortion because the church teaches that God infuses a soul at the moment of conception making the fertilized ovum a complete person whose destruction is murder. This is a faith based, not fact based belief (no one believes an acorn is an oak tree) that should not be imposed on the rest of us but apparently talking openly about this is proof of religious bigotry.
3
Thanks for the pro appeasement speech. The dems have been doing it for decades. Look what it got them?
2
Religion is perpetuated because children are evolutionarily disposed to believe anything adults tell them, and all people want to believe they'll never die. As a bonus, to adherents of any given religion, all others are simply fiction, mythology. Belief without convincing evidence should be immediate disqualification from any judge's seat.
3
Trump will nominate a conservative of some sort. It is however inappropriate for a majority of the high court to be Roman Catholic, as it has been. The country is entitled to a court that is not beholden to one denomination, regardless of its merits. I would say the say if they were all Holy Rollers.
As alway Mr. Bruni you are spot on..the goal of all of Trump's moves is to create a controversy that will give him a slew of one liners for his campaign appearances--that is the entirety of his thought process, nothing more, nothing less.
1
No reason to mention religion, hammer on her total lack of judicial experience. She also does not believe in the principle of stare decisis, existing court decisions must be adhered to unless there’s a very good reason to overturn them. This woman allegedly would analyze each case without reference to existing law. To put it crudely, she’d sort of make up case law as she goes along. People would have no ability to rely on existing court decisions. People need to be able to rely on existing case law.
7
Judge Barrett has only served 7 months as a judge. She is too young and lacks real time opinion making in order to ascertain how she would rule. The academic writings may give some indication, but those writings were made in a bubble and have no real world consequences. I wish that the tried and true deflection response, "I can not answer questions that I may have to rule on in the future", would be prohibited. If you can not answer all the questions posed, then you should not be a nominee for the Supreme Court or any Federal court.
6
First let me say that I am a practicing Catholic with 9 children. That alone does not qualify me for a seat on the SCOTUS. As it seems to be for Ms. Battett.
I , like most pro choice people, do not support abortion. We support a women's freedom to make the best choice she can for her life. No one that I know supports abortion , we support women, children and life at every stage , such as support for the Affordable care act (Obama Care), we generally are against the death penalty, we are for care for seniors,(social security), we support public education and universal pre school, we support the food stamp program and Wic, we generally are against war., I don't believe most , so called pro life people support these quality of life issues.
So please ask senators how Ms Barrett feels about these things.
As far as Notre Dame is concerned, they have an excellent football program but not so much as a center for peace. They were one of the centers for developing the neo con movement that brought us the Iraq war. The Pope said it was an unjust war but Notre Dame never condemned it.
40
I am pro choice and I support a woman's right to an abortion as well as supporting Social Security, universal healthcare, a liveable minimum wage, efforts to save us from climate change, a fair justice system, an economy not rigged for only the 1%, etc., etc. That is what progressives stand for.
9
Tom,
You've stated the opinions of many pro-choice people perfectly. If you drill past "abortion" itself, I truly believe we are the ones who are really pro-life.
1
As others have already commented, it's game-set-match for the radicals at this point. This court seat is a done deal. But, I increasingly sense that the right is now playing with fire, as I sense an increasing fury among those, still the solid if quieter majority in this country, who think in progressive, indeed democratic, terms. This can now only be stopped, and then reversed, at the polls, by seating a congress that respects, recognizes, and upholds true democracy. The court system has now been completely captured, rendering for now the true meaning and intent of the Constitution moot. Change must and can now only come in the voting booth, and even that has been brought too much under the radicals' (and foreign) control. Our fate as a democracy will be determined in November, and not one syllable of that is overstatement.
9
The penultimate irony is a Justice Barrett should be required to recuse herself from any cases concerning abortion. We all know the Catholic church's position on abortion. We therefore know Barrett's religious beliefs interfere with abortion before any hypothetical legal merits. The same could be said about the death penalty. Barrett said so herself in a paper she published. Her religion doesn't prevent Barrett from becoming a Supreme Court Justice. However, her religion should prevent Barrett from ruling on certain cases.
That said, I think Trump is going to nominate Kavanaugh. Barrett carries an obvious political advantage for all the reasons stated here and more. However, Trump has a more pressing concern: Robert Mueller. Kavanaugh has written he doesn't think a President is subject to the laws of normal citizenry while in office. That's a pretty clear indication where Kavanaugh stands on any case concerning Trump's legal troubles. Trump will be naturally inclined to look after himself before his base. Hence, I think Kavanaugh is the nominee.
However, this is exactly the reason Trump should be prevented from nominating any justice at all until the Russia investigation is concluded. Trump has a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, Trump won't recuse himself and Congress won't stop him. We'll therefore have a SCOTUS influenced by Trump's alleged criminal activity for the next 30 or 40 years.
6
Ah, so Barrett is just another distraction by trump. He will appoint Kavanaugh who is already supporting trump & is a loyal yes man. This is just to get everyone’s blood boiling. Very smart. Thank you for pointing that out.
1
If Amy Coney Barrett becomes Kennedy's replacement, the religious right will rush through an abortion case within the year, likely overturning Roe or substantially gutting it. But I wonder if some of those evangelical voters from deep red Trump states have played the thought experiment of a post-Roe US a little further. It doesn't require any leap of faith at all to imagine how many of them have actually had abortions and/or are Catholics using contraception (someone mentioned Griswold). Will they be willing to travel to our "elite" blue states every time they need those medical services suddenly unavailable in their own states? Will the blue states where abortion will absolutely still be legal, and who have already been eating the removal of the SALT deduction, decide to put a massive "medical tariff" on those from out of state seeking those services? Tariffs are apparently in vogue now. So is acting erratically without a second of forethought of the consequences, as displayed by 45. I'll stay in NYC, where women can now and always will be able to get the medical services they need, and where I can get a wedding cake anywhere and any time I want one. The "misunderstood Trump voters" love to call us elites as if that is an insult. I live in a city where people of all religions, colors, genders and sexual orientations live practically on top of each other day in and day out with very little incident. They'll be grateful to come to our elite states post-Roe.
19
The current Supreme Court justice, Sonia Maria Sotomayor, is a Catholic. There was never the brouhaha that we are seeing over her Catholic faith that we are experiencing with Amy Coney Barrett. Was it because Ms. Sotomayor was a liberal appointed by Barack Obama and Ms. Barrett, a conservative, is the possible candidate of President Trump?
There is definitely a double standard when it comes to the appointment of a conservative Catholic such as Ms. Barrett. It also does not help that she is being considered by Mr. Trump whom the liberals and Democrats hate.
Ms. Sotomayor was never scrutinized in the way Ms. Barrett is experiencing right now. Ms. Barrett should be considered for her qualifications which are very impressive and not her religion. Most past Supreme Court justices have been treated this way where there religion was never discussed. Ms. Barrett should be given the same respect. She would be an outstanding Justice and one which should be given a chance to serve. I hope President Trump picks her as his candidate and she ultimately wins the final vote. She would be excellent on the bench.
7
I think the difference is that Justice Sotomayor was not and is not defined by her religion. By her own biography, Barrett is. And she has very limited experience on the bench.
2
I would like to make a correction:
Most past Supreme Court justices have been treated this way where their religion was never discussed.
1
There are other serving Supreme Court justices who are Catholic as well as Justice Sotomayor. Two women who are both share a religious denomination aren't necessarily analogous. Recall that Justice Sotomayor had many years of experience as a lawyer and a judge when she was nominated to SCOTUS. She had a long resume of significant judicial appointments and a deep bibliography. She had practiced law in the real world and interpreted the law as a judge. She was interviewed by Senators and her nomination was fully reviewed and voted on. To say that she was never scrutinized is simply inaccurate. As another commenter pointed out, Ms. Barrett has spent less than one year on the bench. In a situation like that, where experience outside an academic setting is limited, how are Senators to judge the sort of justice a nominee might make? This is a lifetime appointment we're talking about; any nominee should be carefully scrutinized.
3
I am glad Judge Barrett has a strong faith community. I am glad when anyone has a strong moral base of support to help them in their struggles with life and circumstance.
But any judge, including Judge Barrett, must surely realize the 1st amendment to the Constitution--
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--not only enshrines the freedom OF religion but also the freedom FROM religion. Her Catholic faith should in no way impact the lives of those who might worship trees or ardently believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And, in just such a manner, those who might believe a woman to have the right to make decisions about her own body and her own health including about termination of a difficult pregnancy should not have that right abridged.
When the State compels a woman to complete a pregnancy, it must pari passu support that woman and that child. Otherwise, we are left with a morally bankrupt proposition: life begins at conception and ends at birth.
5
A moral base that follows a lying, grifting, cheating, molesting, foul-mouthed cretin?!
Y..E...A...H...sure. Ok.
1
Still smarting from the criticism OBama threw at the Donald at the Washington Correspondents Dinner years ago, ( talk about holding a grudge for a long time.) Trump will do anything to repudiate the last President and try to undo anything the Obama administration did. He thinks he's getting back at Obama by his actions, but in fact he's hurting a lot of voters who not only supported Obama, but relied on many of the actions of Obama's administration, like the ACA. I guess will see how this all works out in November. Didn't almost 3 million more voters support Clinton?
10
There is already a religious litmus test that Republicans apply: 6 of the last 7 Republican nominees placed on the Supreme Court are Catholic.
5
Trump has no core beliefs beyond racism. In his promiscuous life he has undoubtedly encouraged and sanctioned abortion. So now he is going to tear the nation apart over an issue he doesn’t even have strong feelings about.
37
Religion, or lack of it, should never be a test for the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. That said, just what do you think would happen if a President nominated an atheist for the job? The right wing would be apoplectic and the confirmation hearings a real "witch hunt".
It is not beyond the pale to inquire whether or not a candidate can separate their personal religious beliefs from consideration of the facts and the law and the Constitution in any particular case before the Court.
The quintessential example of this is Roe v. Wade. Can the nominee look at the facts and law and precedent in an abortion case, or will they blindly follow their religious beliefs, and be constrained to decide in a pre-ordained manner. Cases are not supposed to be decided before they are brought.
Democrats and those who treasure an independent and balanced Supreme Court should look hard at her decisions during her scant 8 months making them.
Any scent, any whiff of personal bias making it's way into those opinions should disqualify her.
For myself, I hope that Trump names a far right, extremely conservative nominee to fill Kennedy's seat - the father right, the greater the debate and hearings and the longer the delay - maybe till after the McConnell Rule elections?
4
Whomever the nominee may be for the Court, the Democrats are in a perilous position. The debate will position them to the country, once again, as the Party of Abortion and LGBT rights. Like it or not, this is the how the Party is perceived. This will motivate Trump's base, could create pause in the minds of suburban moderates, and lead to an extension of GOP control of Congress. The Democrats will then take solace in being morally correct, but languish by being politically ineffective. Worse case, it may take a national nightmare born of the inevitable consequences of the GOP and Trump's policies to awaken the country. Until then, the Progressives and Moderates in the Democratic party may have to take solace in beating on each other.
1
She would be a fabulous pick for America and both parties. Not tied to the costal elites, and adding a female conservative voice to a female bloc on the Court that is decidedly un-diverse. Smart, young and in touch with parents in the heartland and their concerns she would be a smart choice by an un-smart President.
10
Really? Parents in the heartland believe that birth control is evil?
Did we ever hear there were too many Protestants or Jews on the Supreme Court? I do not recall there was any discussion about their religious faith or practice at the time of their nominations.
Why is Amy Coney Barrett being targeted? Is it because she is Catholic and conservative? Is it because she has seven children? She is brilliant and would be as qualified on the Supreme Court as any of the members who are currently sitting on the bench. If she is chosen by President Trump and I hope she is, she would be an excellent addition to the court. She is young, vibrant and has lots of energy. She would also have many years on the court in which to serve. I hope Mr. Trump gives serious consideration to choosing her. If chosen, I hope she is elected by the senate. She would be excellent.
15
She's not so much a brilliant legal mind as she is a brilliant career player. Sarah Palin offered a fertile woman candidate with a Downs Syndrome son. This young woman has been busy making babies, naturally on behalf of her religion, and, one wonders?, perhaps because they will be perfect little props for her swearing in ceremonies. Remember Justice Roberts' two adorables, and the fuss the media made over the Catholic father of two? Difference is, he had a wife at home to raise those children. Ms. Coney Barrett may have overplayed her hand: she is still very much needed to serve in the home too, raising her children. They're simply too young now to have their mother as a Supreme Court Justice. Life by the dogma, have your career take a fron't seat to family? That goes against the narrative of who Mrs. Coney Barrett is portraying... I suspect she will withdraw her nomination before her name gets too far along in the process. An cacaemic with primary responsibility at home, and just a brief flirtation with a judicial career, is not what is called for now --- Republicans will not settle for a token woman.
She is spit in the face of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
There is no freedom from religion in this nation of endless lies and ridiculously enabled liars.
How many Catholics are on the Court now and how does their religion influence their decisions that affect all of us?
As a life-long Catholic, I can assure that Barret’s chosen sect, People of Praise is not Catholicism. It’s not Cursillo lite. Obviously, she doesn’t represent moderate, liberal Catholics. And am doubtful that her beliefs would be highly regarded by conservative Catholics once they understood its teachings.
She reminds of Pence, born Catholic who decided to become another radicalized person of some (Christian version of no women in the room without mother) faith that they both use to wield as weapons to ordinary communities whose lifestyles differ from theirs.
71
I am Catholic and I had never heard of People of Praise. If there was a branch in Manhattan, I would become a member.
I admire Amy Coney Barrett who is an active Catholic and not afraid to talk about her faith. It is that important to her and she appears to have been blessed in life. Do you think her Catholic faith played a part? Absolutely. To be even considered for a seat on the Supreme Court is quite an honor whether or not she is selected. She should be very proud of this accomplishment.
7
People of Praise" is indeed, Catholicism. It is a Catholic Charismatic group whose form of prayer, scripture study, and practice of their faith is very similar to Pentecostal churches which are thriving in the south, in Latin America and in many parts of the US. When has VP Pence ever used his faith as a "weapon to ordinary communities (whatever they are) whose lifestyles differ from theirs." ?
The whole case against Amy Barrett is blatant anti- Catholicism or an even broader case of being against the religion of any prospective jurist whose views do not agree with the political views of so-called progressive liberals.
And of course, we all know that at bottom, it all stems from the intense hatred of the current president by the left.
3
I was raised Catholic and no longer believe. I am happy she believes, but do not inflict those beliefs on those who do not accept them. Her opinion on a woman’s right to choose has to be affected by her faith. It should not affect my life and choices.
1
I do not recall previous Supreme Court justices questioned about their religious beliefs. Amy Coney Barrett's religious affiliation should make no difference to whether or not she is chosen for the bench. She is a woman who happens to be a devout Roman Catholic. I am sure her faith will not interfere with her making sound and fair decisions when determining the outcome of any Supreme Court justice case.
This would be a wonderful opportunity for President Trump to nominate a woman who is highly intelligent and very qualified with excellent credentials. She would make a wonderful Supreme Court justice and would follow the constitution as it was intended. What better time to add another woman to the Supreme Court then now. She would be an exemplary justice and would make women proud. We are always hearing about how we need more women in positions of power. This would be a good time for the senate to prove they are serious about this and elect Ms. Barrett to the bench.
8
Ah, let's see... gender bias and dismissal of ardent political Catholicism as any influence on judgment. Okay...
Failure to enforce "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" will be the death of the US, and quite possibly much of the rest of the Earth.
The supreme temptation of Amy Coney Barrett is, should Trump ALSO get to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer (not unreasonable prospects, particularly if he is re-elected), that he would become the NEW record-holder for appointing women if he appoints two more in addition to Barrett – when the previous record-holder was (wait for it) … Barack Obama, with two. And if he can do it while keeping the Court conservative, so much the better.
What Trump relishes above all else but winning … is being unique. What would be the chances of another president appointing three women to the SCOTUS in a VERY long time?
Besides, Barrett also is pretty hot, a factor to which Trump is hardly insensitive.
5
I can envision the president in a quandary. On the one hand Barrett is "pretty hot." On the other, Kavanaugh has said that a sitting president cannot be sued civilly or indicted for a crime. Who knew presidenting could be so hard?
Dude, will you support the next two women trump will certainly appoint if they are not "hot"? New lows on the 4th of July. Sad.
1
Trump won't be dumb enough to nominate her, even if she is a woman. She is in her 40s, with 5 biological children and 2 adopted ones. They're not props. THey are children, young and at home.
Mrs. Coney Barrett already has a job as a career woman, and an early in her career judge. Her main job is as mother to those children. It's great she can also work outside the home. She can't be a Supreme Court Justice though, with all of the heavy lifting that entails, and still fully meet the needs of all those children at home.
Her time may come, later. Right now, we need a full-time career person in there. There's a reason why the other female justices had either grown children, or no children, when they took on this major career choice. Let's be honest: no woman can serve two masters (or one job, and 7 needed young un's at home... She made her choice when she took on the responsibility of raising so many children. Again I repeat: they are not props, and no person -- man or woman -- can have "it all." The Peter Principle tells us this woman should remain a judge, where she's at, and let her gain some experience in that role while juggling her big family life, and her career.
3
Perhaps her husband can meet the needs of her children, freeing his spouse to pursue her career.
You know, the way wives have done for decades.
2
Sounds like a discrimination argument to me. Children should be and asset, not a hindrance.
1
Perhaps her husband can meet the needs of her children, freeing his spouse to pursue her career.
1
Bruni: "While she clerked long ago for Justice Antonin Scalia, her own time on the bench is limited to her eight months on that court."
That's ridiculously biased. Barrett clerked for Scalia for a year and, before that, she clerked for another year for Judge Laurence Silberman. That's TWO YEARS experience as a clerk. For the record, clerks work closely with judges on *legal* matters.
8
Indeed they do, but they do not make the final decision. And that is the most important part. Which experience she does seem to lack.
7
In the sixth grade we studied the Constitution, and I recall learning that those appointed to the Supreme Court were the most learned, wise, impartial, and experienced jurists in the land. So much for that.
Barrett is learned, I'm sure; But the other three: not so much.
3
Any conservative whom Trump picks will provide the last vote needed to overturn Roe, and most likely Griswold also. That stamps paid on his debt to the religious right. However Trump is never overly concerned with paying his debts. Trump's actions begin and end with Trump's needs. Trump will appoint the last justice needed to end legal abortion because he needs religious voters in 2018 and 2020. However Trump desperately needs a compliant Supreme Court to protect him from a Mueller subpoena, or perhaps even close down the Special Counsel's investigation. A sincerely religious justice who seeks to end abortion would not necessarily vote to protect a president with Trump's peculiar sense of morality. Trump will choose whomever is a rock solid vote to protect him from the existential threat of Mueller.
12
While Barrett would give Trump the kind of ideological battle he loves, Kavanaugh, the other favored pick, is on record saying that a sitting President cannot be indicted either civilly or criminally. I think in the President's mind this personal consideration trumps all. In addition, Kavanaugh has a long pro-business, pro-Citizens United and anti-administrative state record that the money behind Trump just loves. While we know Barrett's position on social issues, there is very little discussion of her position on these other issues. That being true, it is hard to judge which potential nominee could do the most harm.
14
Judge Barrett is hardly qualified -- and that has nothing to do with her political views. She is an academic, and that is all she is. She practiced law for almost no time at all before her academic career and since she left Notre Dame has been a judge for a whopping six months. Some acquaintance with the conduct of litigation in the trenches should be a prerequisite to serve as judge at any level, let alone one appointed for life to the highest court in the land. Judge Barrett has none.
27
People of Praise, the evangelical "ecumenical" group that turns out to be 90% Catholic is dangerous. They believe in "male headship" in religious matters and subordinated women were until recently called "handmaids." This group has tried to hide Coney Barrett's affiliation with them, scrubbing web sites with references to her. It doesn't seem at all possible that a Justice with this type of affiliation could leave Roe v. Wade standing. Her conscience would demand it be struck down. This is not JFK, consensus, mainstream Catholicism. But quite frankly, a sectarian offshoot that freaked me out as a kid. Ever hear anyone speaking in tongues, in person? You don't want to.
62
Is Speaking in Tongues protected by the First Amendment?
1
Note scholarly paper, abstract below:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=781344
2
Given Bruni's advice to critique her on her legal views, it would have been helpful to read about those views. I get that she's an ardent Catholic. What's her legal philosophy?
11
I shake my head. Turning into a real banana republic. The Supreme arbiters of the land will mostly be catholic/evangelical and corporates.
Magical thinking with ultimate power. If there is a god and he/she is not away on vacation please please restore my friend the United States to some semblance of sanity. Other than the normal insane american foreign policy killings around the world. That causes people at your border but no that’s not it, it’s America the shining city. Not.
He will nominate her. She will sit. It’s your democracy....
12
"The Supreme arbiters of the land will mostly be catholic/evangelical and corporates."
There are nine US Supreme Court justices. Post a *complete* list with your classifications.
Are you aware there are three Supreme Court justices who are Jewish. They were also appointed by the Democrats.
Seven children? She's already a martyr.
7
Is it just me, or does People of Praise have the whiff of a cult about it?
And should a seat on the highest court in the land be filled by a woman who has a laughably brief eight months of experience as a judge?
36
"A whiff"?
More like the stench downwind from a complex of an overripe landfill, busy rendering plant, and sewage facility on a muggy August afternoon...
Everything else aside, her limited time on the bench should disqualify her, all politics aside.
I went to a Catholic school for 12 years, I now live in Chicago. Beware of people from Indiana and beware of ardent Catholics. They get caught up in the dogma too much. Something about Indiana makes people very closed minded and highly conservative.
This woman should not get near any bench of any kind, period.
51
Beware of people from Indiana and Catholics. I thought part of the Left's dogma was was to eschew labels.
@EC17: "Something about Indiana....." The new Gilead might come from Indiana. Handmaid's Tale anyone? It can happen in a flash.
1
There are other issues in play that given the full control by the GOP, the Trumpers, the religious right, the oil industry and the NRA and their intent on the wholesale destruction of our democracy that roe v Wade will be the least of our problems.
7
Once again our sorry excuse for a president takes the opportunity to upset the apple cart. He is thinking about nominating a rookie judge with radical conservative views to the highest court in the land. And he is probably laughing at all of the hand wringing by his liberal opponents.
Assume for the moment that Trump is not stupid. A big assumption but stay with it. Why is he doing this? Why is he dragging another American institution through his amusement park world? Who benefits when our institutions are weakened and made less effective? Can you guess?
When is some government department or agency or civilian group going to find out what the Russians are holding over Trump? Obviously he is doing their bidding. If we knew why he is working for them, maybe we can stop him before he drags the entire country down with him.
22
It will be interesting to see how folks react when the first Muslim is nominated to the Supreme Court. It will happen, sooner or later.
10
Sooner than later I hope, may I add somewhat crankily.
Yes, Precedents. Autocorrect is NOT my friend. It's sneaky.
4
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1, the Speech or Debate Clause states of the USC:
[Senators & Representatives]…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Consider that you go in for a dream job. And the committee to hire you asks about your religious beliefs (or sexual orientation, for example). The committee members then proceed to say to you-on the record-that your religious beliefs (or sexual orientation) makes you a dubious candidate.
In the USA, this is illegal everywhere except in Congress.
For liberals, progressives, and even minorities (like Feinstein) to flagrantly violate a law because they enjoy constitutional protection shows how hypocritical they are.
Senators need to exact a religious test to ensure a well-qualified candidate gets the job and would be the first to denounce anyone anywhere else in the USA for doing likewise.
I challenge the senators vetting the next SCOTUS Associate Justice to follow the law for any other hire in the USA.
6
SCOTUS judgeship is not like "any other hire in the USA".
I don`t want to see Roe vs Wade thrown aside but I am more concerned about someone whose religion allows them to be influenced by someone who holds sway over them. If I`m reading this correctly the hierarchy of this group she belongs to will have the ability to control her decisions. Anyone who pledges fealty to a religion before the constitution is not a free citizen but a slave to religious dogma.
41
The Founders made their feelings clear in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli—negotiared under Washington, signed by Adams, passed unanimously by a Senate half-full of signers of the Constitution—that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
The last sentence of above quote comes from Article 11 of the treaty.
http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html
23
"The Founders made their feelings clear in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli ..."
Posting a quote is not making an argument. What are you trying to say about Supreme Court nominees?
1
Extreme religiosity of a candidate for SCOTUS should be disqualifying. Loyalty should be to USA/Constitution, not to one god or another.
1
This already reminds me of when Kennedy was running for President and people were sure that he was, even in his political responsibilities and duties, more committed to the Catholic Church than to the United States--and that he would certainly be taking orders from the Pope.
12
Obviously someone or organization felt threatened by Kennedy's presidency. He was assasinated after serving two years and 306 days.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials ..
I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
~ President John F. Kennedy
70
1) there is no reason to attack either Barrett or her religion. She actually sounds more thoughtful and honest than all the Republican men who vote against abortion but then arrange abortions for their mistresses
2) the problem is not Barrett, but the people who spent 2016 complaining about "establishment" Democrats and characterizing detailed policy proposals as boring (Bruni even said boring in a column), and those who voted for Stein (2 Seats); bonus points for those who voted for Nader in Florida (4 Seats). The time to worry about those seats was when we had the chance to vote for Democrats--note: all the Democrats on the Supreme Court opposed Citizens United, all Republicans supported it.
3) If parents in states like Indiana, Kentucky, and, yes, Maine, don't want one option taken away from them when their 15 year old daughter becomes pregnant (or their 15-year old son impregnates the young girl down the street), they can call their Senators now, and then stop voting for Republicans; bonus if they realize that there will be less secret money in politics, their social security and Medicare will be protected, their air will be cleaner, and their right to fight for higher wages, overtime, and health benefits will not be undermined, but rather protected, expanded, and made more affordable.
18
the idiocy of blaming 3d party candidates for the abject failure of the corporate democrats persists.
al gore lost 2000 to jeb bush, not w. he's yet to comment on the 90k voters gov. bush stripped from the voter rolls, or on the flipping of 20k electronic votes in volusia and other countries, or on the electoral college, which he should have been working to abolish.
jill stein secured a recount in michigan 2016 which trump obviously stole and then hillary did nothing except label us all deploratbles.
the problem lies with the corporate democrats who put trump in office, not the social democrats who actually stand for something.
4
Harvey-
Your slogans have given us Trump,
This is what we would be achieving now, if we had Clinton and a Democratic Congress
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Children stop it!! We have elections to win. Squabbling amongst ourselves or revisiting past elections won't do it
It doesn't matter which of the candidates Trump picks. The pick will be terrible, just as terrible as Gorsuch.
The Supreme Court now has a radical GOP majority, with little or no regard for precedent. It will impose a right wing, ideological agenda disdained by a majority of voting Americans. The majority of voters elected President Obama, who was illicitly denied the right to appoint a Justice by unprecedented GOP Senate obstruction. Their subsequent choice for President, Hilary Clinton, was denied office by an antiquated Electoral College and interference by Russia, likely with the collusion of the Trump campaign, and possibly Trump himself.
If and when the Democrats regain the Senate and the Presidency, they must recognize that there are no longer rules or precedents when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. They must grow a spine and expand the Court by however many justices Trump appoints. It's the only way to properly recognize the will of the American people, as expressed by their votes in the last two elections. Indeed, it's the only way to restore the Court's legitimacy.
13
I wasn’t able to get the wording of the People of Praise “covenant” on a quick search but did find this on the group's website: "After a long period of prayer and participation in community life, many members of the People of Praise choose to make a lifelong commitment to the community - a covenant. This covenant is a pledge of love and service to fellow community members and to God…”
Here is the Supreme Court oath:
"I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The first pledges allegiance to God, the second to the Constitution in the name of God. So the question arises: Does a person like Amy Coney Barrett believe that the Constitution, “properly” interpreted, is equivalent to the will of God? If not, then the two oaths conflict. And if so then it is an admission that every decision by her would represent governmental establishment of religion. That’s because she has to admit that some people have different ideas about the will of God, and so her particular ideas on that score are specific to her religion.
9
So, she has had very limited real judicial experience...and she might put her personal, religious beliefs above the law as expressed in the U.S. Constitution...seems pretty clear.
Is anyone paying any attention to these realities and facts anymore? If so, please contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators.
Sigh.
33
We have to be fair: Elena Kagan had no judicial experience prior to her Supreme Court appointment.
8
Barrett exposes every obvious hypocrisy of the Left. Let the democrats oppose her with bigotry, hate and elitism - they won't defeat her but in the process they will probably bring down 3 or 4 democratic Senators and maybe a dozen House seats.
13
It would be great to have someone actively engaged motherhood as a jurist. Good insight.
5
We don't need another Ivy league Justice .. That's a positive in my book.
Also -- There are many Catholics personally against abortion who would never make it illegal ....
8
>>> "There are many Catholics personally against abortion who would never make it illegal ...."
Yes, but how many of them are members of People of Praise?
20
GT - Can you give more concrete detail about the ways that one justice falls short of another by virtue of being "Ivy League"? Thanks.
2
brilliant choice.
1) challenges the Ivy mystique
2) celebrates the intellectual achievements of women
3) challenges the religious bigotry of powerful elites (e.g., Diane Feinstein)
13
>>> "2) celebrates the intellectual achievements of women"
Gender roles in People of Praise:
"Each member has someone called a 'head', who acts a personal adviser. In general, heads give encouragement, correction, and help in decision-making. Men have other men as their heads. Married women are headed by their husbands. Single women and widows usually have other women as their heads."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise#Leadership
8
Come on Frank, if Sotomayor is ok when Obama is president then Barret is ok when Trump is president. To the winners....
21
How can conservatives be even a little confident that she would, for instance, overturn Roe v. Wade, without first considering the facts and Constitutional principles of the case in which she will render her judgment on the issue - a case that doesn't exist yet? Doesn't that prove that their support for her has zero to do with the Constitution? Doesn't it highlight what rational people recognize to be the brazen hypocrisy of these self-proclaimed "strict constructionists"? What always nags at me is this: Why do they lie about it in the first place? If they want a country based on religion and tribal allegiance, why pretend to be concerned with the Constitution? Why not just go for it, full bore? My hypothesis: They know deep down that they're wrong and so they have to lie to themselves.
14
I would certainly hope that if Barrett is selected, that her Catholicism will indeed affect her judicial disposition. A faithful Catholic - if they have paid ANY attention to their Catholic theology - would utterly abhor Trump...and all his works. Moreover, an attentive Catholic would know and understand that Pope Francis has specifically castigated those that have made pelvic issues their focus. Instead, the Pope has called global environmental disregard a sin against God and his creation.
28
All of this...every bit of it...is the fault of the Clintons, with their scandals and hubris.
They engendered so much hate for Democrats that it'll take another disaster like a financial crisis to ever see one elected again.
And if you don't believe me, remember that trump ran against Hillary using basically the same message as Obama in 2008, minus the misogyny and racism:
She was a corrupt part of the establishment and was never gonna change.
5
Here is the full quote from Senator Feinstein from the NYT’s 9/13/17 article about Barrett.
Senator Feinstein asked Ms. Barrett about her views, and then made the following statement: “Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”
Given the current regime’s disdain for human rights and the Establishment Clause, Feinstein’s bluntly stated concern is entirely appropriate. Ms. Barrett is a member of a fringe religious organization that assigns “handmaids” to police adult women’s behavior, sometimes intrusively. I would appreciate knowing the identity of Ms. Barrett’s handmaid, and to what extent this person influences Ms. Barrett’s legal or family decisions. In 2017, the People of Praise quietly changed the term “handmaid” to “woman leader” and removed Ms. Barrett’s photos from their website. Sounds like someone wants to ditch those red robes for a black one.
It’s obvious that the right wing party loves its poorly-qualified Bible-quoting mouthpieces & Heritage Foundation stooges. I expect Senator Feinstein to question all nominees sharply and relentlessly. If Mr. Bruni finds the senator’s words “inelegant”; he might want to steer clear of her constituents!
96
Senator: "Mrs. Barrett, where were you the day Vietnam attacked our shores?"
Amy Coney Barrett: "I wasn't born yet."
3
It's the Presidential Apprentice, Summer Special. " The Stepford Judges ", in which a very carefully collated selection of Conservative Supreme Wanna-Bes, are given THE treatment. Their memories of every decision, opinion and thought has been erased. They are now open, blank books. After confirmation, the anointed one will have the treatment reversed, and revert to their " usual " selves. Seriously. Beware.
10
This is now Justice Kennedy’s legacy, an even more divided, acrimonious country. WHAT could he have possibly been (not) thinking? Why now and not until after the midterm election?
This is even more political than Bush v. Gore.
So much for a fair judiciary.
Justice Kennedy has shown his politics.
14
The more pressing for issue Trump may be the nominees take on if the President can be subpoenaed or held accountable for his actions. He may also consider it his due in this case since he appointed her.
4
I think everyone needs to just calm down and breathe for a second. I honestly cannot believe that advances to marriage rights or right to choose are in danger. These issues, to the left, are just as important as the 2nd Amendment is to the right. If any branch of government attempts to restrict or reduce these rights, the backlash will be strong enough to threaten the stability of the country. No matter how dumb our politicians are (regardless of party- they are all absolute morons at this point), they will realize this and only stoke the fire a bit in order to raise funds. Be kind to each other. This is the only way to get through our current difficulties...
7
Only a sadist or an absolute idiot would believe that an end to Roe would mean an end to abortions in the U.S. so what would be the upshot of all this apart from driving some women back to coat hangers and back-alley abortions (i.e., those who don't live in blue states or are unable to travel to travel to them)? Many indigent pregnant women would surely die- right along with their fetuses. It would amount to pointless barbarism on the part of America's conservatives and religious hypocrites. Aren't they already getting their hicks from the sight of Latino children being separated from their parents and Muslim refugees being turned away from our shores?
13
"getting their KICKS" sorry...
2
"It would amount to pointless barbarism on the part of America's conservatives and religious hypocrites."
Hello. Welcome to America.
Sadists are totally getting their kicks during this perpetual war crimes phase of the current administration. Legislators fill their bottles with the kool aid from a special fountain right behind Sessions and Stephen Miller's desks.
On Sunday's meet the press Senator Lindsey Graham stated the the nominee must respect state decisis. The was noted to be a veiled nod to the providence of Roe v. Wade and that he does not want to see that overturned.
Mr. Graham realizes the practicality of preserving Roe as a political point. If Roe is overturned, the Republicans lose one of their wedge issues. He also understands that the majority of Americans strongly support choice even when they don't like the idea of terminating a life - pro-choice is not pro-abortion.
8
I grew up a Catholic in South Bend, IN and went to college at St. Mary's, the "girl's school" across from Notre Dame, at a time when girls couldn't go to Notre Dame. I know the dogmatism of the evangelical Catholics very well. I left Indiana to further my science education and I left Catholicism to satisfy my conscience. My religious belief is that it is wrong to impose suffering on young women, and ultimately their children, because of the belief that "life begins at conception." I'm a biologist. I know that many fertilized eggs never reach a viable stage for many reasons. They are not persons. The notion that they are is a religious belief. The first amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. My concern about Amy Barrett is that she does not respect that part of the first amendment. If she cannot recognize that the Catholic notion of when "life begins" is simply a religious belief and is a belief not held by most Americans, she doesn't belong on a court of law, much less the Supreme Court.
118
When does life begin then? After 5 months or 6 months? 6 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 18 hours, 16 minutes and 10 seconds? When?
4
Good point, mb. Anti-abortionism has no scientific basis. It is entirely a religion-based belief. Actually a religious cult-based belief since it cannot be explicitly justified by anything in either the Old or New Testaments.
1
That's a religious question. Many people would say life begins at birth. Roe v. Wade is a reasonable legal compromise.
It's all part of what Putin told his agent Trump: Use any means to sow as much dissension among Americans and among America's allies as you can.
Trump is Russia's most successful agent in history.
46
America is already a functional theocracy when the true offense is not the mingling of state and religion, but having the audacity to point it out.
10
Oh Donald is such a status seeker, always the woeful little child, with his face pressed up against the glass, staring at the cool kids, wishing they'd look his way. So insecure, so needy, so longing for recognition and acceptance. Even the title POTUS cannot fill the void that a lifelong faker feels since he knows he is unworthy.
With that in mind, look for a Harvard and/ or Yale graduate.
But still, how different is this religious group from NXIVM? They don't brand?
4
But Frank, she’s a woman. One cannot serve two masters. #MeToo set this trap, please oblige them and quietly fall in.
1
She isn’t serving two masters; she.is putting her religious convictions above her gender, and that would put other women at risk. Roe v. wademhas the support of 62% of the American people, not that that matters to the religious right.
6
Which master would she chose? God or trump? Loyalty oath would say trump.
1
LIberals, be afraid. Be very afraid.
2
It seems pretty clear that Professor Barrett sees no contradiction to her support of a Catholic pro life position but a seeming hesitancy in objecting to or condemning the death penalty. Like many conservative Catholic and fundamentalist Christians they seem certain that life begins at conception but want to obfuscate the undeniable fact that a person put to death as a result of capital punishment was alive before the execution occurred.
17
The person subject to capital punishment has presumably committed a crime. What crime has the conceived infant committed? Uterine trespass?
7
You seem not to understand the Catholic Church's position on abortion and the death penalty. Nowhere does the Catholic Church argue that committing a crime justifies the taking of a life with the death penalty. If you read Barrett's own writing on this you would see your objection to my comparison is a false one.
3
What about the many innocent people wrongly accused and convicted?
6
Are we going to turn into anticlerical France, where a president, even if religious and devout, is expected to avoid attending Mass during his tenure? Bruni, who has never made a secret of his distaste for devout Catholicism, clearly would prefer that for starters, though he'd be much happier with outright apostasy.
5
The problem is not Frank. The problem is zealotry.
A comment by another reader to another column:
"About Amy Coney Barrett, only 46, & who has less than a year serving as a judge.
Bret says that "Dianne Feinstein foolishly decided to suggest that her Catholic convictions might make her unfit for a judgeship after Trump nominated her..."
Shouldn't he know as a journalist that Coney Barrett just 20 years ago co-authored a paper, "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases," with John H Garvey (currently President of the Catholic University of America, & dream leader of Gilead) that concluded Catholic judges are too greatly torn by their faith to judge certain cases?
The 2nd paragraph:
"The legal system has a solution for this dilemma-it allows (indeed it
requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job. This is a good solution. But it is harder than you think to determine when a judge must recuse himself & when he may stay on the job. Catholic judges will not want to shirk their judicial obligations. They will want to sit whenever they can without acting immorally. So they need to know what the church teaches, & its effect on them. On the other hand litigants & the general public are entitled to impartial justice, & that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. We need to know whether judges are sometimes legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide."
Judge Amy should recuse herself from this job search."
53
A mere 18 months of Trump's Reign of Terror, and already we are no longer a nation of laws but of ruthless, mean-spirited, authoritarian men and women.
Amy Coney Barrett fits the Trump dictatorship model well that demands total loyalty and adulation, politicizes the judiciary, relies on blatant lies and propaganda to promote consensus and conformity, and strongly disparages independent journalism and a free press.
At this point, it is not what could possibly go wrong, but what could go right with Trump and the GOP in charge and the Democrats mostly MIA?
10
As a former Catholic, jumpin’ jack flash, there are already TOO MANY CATHOLICS on the Supreme Court. Gone are the days when JFK had to declare his independence from the pope. Now I’d be happy if a prospective nominee declared her or his allegiance to Pope Francis. But the courts current crop and the new possibilities are more Opus Dei than Vatican II.
24
The primary goal a religious person seeks is to get to Heaven or Paradise or Elysium or whatever afterlife the deity of your choice has created just for you and your fellow coreligionists. No unbelievers need apply.
This leaves everyone else out.
Additionally, along the way to redemption, you may be permitted to cause unbelievers to suffer, just a little; or maybe a lot, depending on the particular set of sacred text that has been cherry picked just for you.
Whatever happened to "Do unto onto others as you would done onto you."
Whether we abolish abortion or maintain a woman's right to chose should depend on the merits or drawbacks of either position as it relates to our Constitution, our laws, and how we choose to maintain our freedoms, including freedom of and from religion.
The so-called "conservative" position seems to be aimed at the adoption of religious doctrine as the law of the land. This will surely deprive us all of our most cherished freedom of all, the right to think freely and in our own behalf.
12
Ms. Berrett is guilty. She has seven children, is Catholic, loves her husband and is brilliant She is anathema to the liberal feminists. She will be confirmed if picked. That was on the ballot. Stay tuned.
11
Your Straw Argument duly noted.
Worse yet, this Court will decide if 45 is above the law. Will he pardon himself? Can he? There should be NO vote while he is under investigation.
73
Why would religion be discussed with Conan when it was no big deal with Gorsuch? It it because he is a protestant? FYI Kennedy is Catholic so its no change to the court - how is this even a topic? Fake News.
6
I say, "Bravo" to Barrett and the in-your-face bias of people like Frank Bruni and his entourage of liberal elite wannabes. It reminds me of Melania's jacket that said she doesn't care and "do u?" She doesn't even bother to spell out the personal pronoun because it no longer has value. Get it? Whatever Trump can get away with, I say, "Go for it" because the liberal elite wannabes are full of themselves and getting really boring with their media propaganda. I am sure that Soviet Russia did not have media more biased than we currently have in the good old U.S. of A.
9
I read that 1/3 of Americans believe we will have some type of civil war w/i 5 yrs. I also believe this and have a great idea for some of us: CA, OR, WA, NY, MA should break from the USA and form their own country. Doing so would cripple the leftover states, particularly financially (particularly since California alone accounts for 40% of the USA economy).
I don't know what else to do to avoid a civil war and to tackle Trump and his evil minions.
16
I wish those states mentioned would leave the US. And do not worry about crippling the rest of us, we would get along just fine without you. And you would be happier also.
Do it.
5
Let’s all face it, ANYBODY Trump nominates the liberals will HATE. Hate is one thing the Dems have proven they have down pat. But, I don’t think they can successfully run on that alone. But that’s all they talk about anymore (“We hate Trump!”)
14
Haha it seems like a pretty big blow to the American Catholic community to say describe members of People of Praise as Catholics. Is the Vatican on board with that?
11
Neither People of Praise nor the Vatican would describe the organization as Catholic.
"A majority of People of Praise members are Catholic, and yet the People of Praise is not a Catholic group. We aim to be a witness to the unity Jesus desires for all his followers. Our membership includes not only Catholics but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and nondenominational Christians."
https://peopleofpraise.org/about/who-we-are/
8
The Pope met recently with members of the People of Praise. I guess he must approve of this group or he would not have bothered.
As many have pointed out, it is not Ms. Barrett's Catholicism that is the issue but her membership in the People for Praise movement. It's like the difference between Judaism and ultra-orthodox Judaism. Can't imagine the former being invoked to oppose a SCOTUS nomination; the latter, I would only hope so.
7
People for Praise is close enough to an extremist cult (handmaidens?!?$!to scare the bejesus out of me. Can’t help but question the critical thinking capabilities and the emotional stability of anyone who would sign up for that.
12
I think it depends upon how strongly she considers the rule of law verses the dictates of conscience. It actually comes down to whether her principles concerning the law conform with the Enlightenment or the Anti-enlightenment. If she considers the rule of law critical, she will not overturn Roe vs. Wade just to suit her personal preferences. If she considers personal beliefs supreme then she may just find a rationale for overturning Roe v. Wade.
2
Are Democrats really going to say that a Catholic shouldn't be allowed to serve on the SCOTUS? What if the person were a Muslim?
8
Although Trump is probably the least predictable of American Presidents, I will hazard a guess that he will pick her.
She is a member of People of Praise, to which she has taken an eternal oath of loyalty. In this small group every man has another man assigned over him to be his "head", and every woman has another woman over her to be her "handmaid" (They may have changed the name of the handmaid office). They claim 3,000 members, but it has been noted that this includes those who once joined but quit. Note that I am not attacking People of Praise's dogma or rites. However, those not familiar with it should know that among the over 70 million Catholics in the USA and the 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide it is not in the mainstream.
4
I admire her religious commitment, even though I don't share her religion. She is the kind of justice we need.
9
It drives you crazy that she’s qualified, doesn’t it? She’s a woman and smart.
12
I'm a woman, and really smart. I don't want a "People of Praise" Catholic on the Supreme Court. This is not a theocracy. She's too committed to one religion to make law for people like me who are not religious at all.
72
She's qualified? How do you figure?
It is a fact that Christian preachers in the 18th and 19th centuries regularly preached to Congress. Yet the preachers in no way dictated the legislative movements of those Congresses.The existence of a strong faith life does not mean one is a mindless automaton. A life of faith gives hope, order, meaning and community in ways not provided by the purely academic and scientific.There is the ugly belief that a living and active Christian and Catholic faith, such as that of Amy Coney Barrett, is a sign of intellectual immaturity and a closed mind, even a prima facie cause for dismissal and disdain. If one leads their faith life openly and without compromise, such as the orthodox Jew, Muslim, or Catholic, one is often met with scorn in a highly secularized America. People who take the tenets of their faith seriously, often people of great courage in this secularized age, and have well-thought reasons for their lifestyle. As such, they are open to reason, dialogue, and are people of great dignity. As citizens, we all seek lives of peace, prosperity and happiness for ourselves and families and friends, in ways particular to our own personalities and family histories. We are called to respect our neighbor, with all due good-will, however different from ourselves, as we strive for a more perfect union. We must respect another's deeply held faith life, integral to their personal happiness and peace, and recognize it does not preclude an open and genuine and rich life of the mind.
10
Beautifully stated. If more Americans lived in the ways you suggest, I can only hope that it would make for a better country.
1
You are putting forth an argument for ideal abstraction not the facts of fundamentalism’s baked-in intolerance.
Respect and tolerance for traditional American ethical values are completely missing in this corrupt administration.
Why is it that discussing a nominee's religion is suddenly off base when the religion in question is something agreeable like Catholicism?" What if the nominee were a Muslim? an Orthodox Jew? Or, God forbid, an atheist? Religion does matter. A nominee's adherence to dogma is a legitimate question. Once again Frank, you took a swing and you missed. Strike one. All of us have a right to know how much this person's religion may affect her judgement because what she would do if confirmed is to judge. So come down off your high horse and look at the facts on the ground.
5
Oh great, an Opus Dei SCOTUS judge, soooo mainstream.
7
No, People of Praise is rather different from Opus Dei, but it is no less in opposition to progressive principles.
Alito is reported to be an Opus Dei member and Scalia was widely rumored to be. Thomas has ties to Opus Dei priests. Roberts' children attended an Opus Dei school.
3
There are no Opus Dei schools. Do you mean a Jesuit school?
Yes, there are indeed Opus Dei schools.
In the DC area, take a look at The Heights, in Potomac (boys) and Oakcrest, in Vienna (girls).
It would be difficult to confuse these institutions with ones operated by the Jesuits. ;^)
4
Won't one of Trump's many girlfriends tell the Press about an abortion they had and Trump was the father who encouraged it or paid for it? There must be someone somewhere...
59
the poorer and younger a woman is, the more she needs roe. wealthier women always have the means, whether it means traveling or finding a doctor nearby
17
Good to see that Frank is not falling into the usual beartrap of hypothesizing on theoretical occurrences carried out by the unknowable conscience of possible nominees.
Frank does love his counterfactuals of his many possible worlds.
2
Roe V Wade will be gone soon. Weep tonight, for what's become of America. But tomorrow, ask yourself: "What am I going to do about it?" Can you lend financial to support NARAL or PP? Do it. If you live in a state without an abortion ban, can you host women seeking an abortion or supply travel funds to poor women in middle America? Do it. If you live in a state that bans abortion, will you support politicians who work to defend women's rights? Will you knock doors to build support? Collect signatures to put the issue on the ballot? Do it. It's only a democracy if we can keep it.
9
When will we have an atheist member of the Supreme Court? There are millions of Americans who don't believe in any god.
55
How about a Hindu nominee - doesn’t one of the most successful minorities that contributes so much to the US deserve to have one of its own nominated to the High Court. Perhaps, it is time that the likes of Ramesh Ponnuru realize that faiths other than Christianity, Judaism, and Islam exist and even flourish in our nation.
8
Amy Barret is unenlightened. That truth alone disqualifies her as a candidate for SCOTUS.
13
This old (over 70) white guy says: Take away people's rights at your peril.
I have a wife, two daughters, a daughter-in-law, and two granddaughters. If you mess with their rights, you are also messing with me. And my son. And my two sons-in-law. And (in the future) my two grandsons.
But let me ask all of the "pro-life" folks a simple question:
Who gave YOU the right to butt into the medical issues of a person you do not know, and with whom you have no personal relationship?
You want to butt into MY medical issues? FIRST SHOW ME ALL OF YOUR MEDICAL RECORDS. (And then you can get lost.)
The same logic would apply if you want to butt into the medical issues of the women in my family.
166
Applause
12
Joe,
You, your wife, your two daughters, daughter-in-law, two grandaughters, son and your future grandsons were and will be babes in the womb.
Just as you and your spouse and relatives had the right to life in the womb, so does every other babe
in the womb.
It is just logical.
6
Joe, you the man. In a GOOD way. Cheers.
6
Why do conservatives get so excited about bringing back coat-hanger abortions? I just don’t understand it.
57
No need for coat hanger abortions. Have the child then give it up for adoption. Maybe not the best life but it's better than killing it.
1
Ms. Coney Barrett is welcome to adhere to her preferred spiritual tradition - so long as she understands that other spiritual traditions exist, are equally valid, and must be protected under law.
That's the issue at the heart of this battle - the right to believe differently or not at all.
I grew up a Catholic, attending parochial elementary schools and a Jesuit University, but today describe myself as a yogi, a spiritual progressive, and a Deist.
I believe that the soul is immortal - and therefore an abortion leads to a soul's detour, nothing more. Any soul that chooses to manifest finds a suitable vehicle - sooner or later.
The Catholic Church of my youth attempted to persuade me that a baby that died in an abortion, or in childbirth, or before being baptized, would be sentenced to an eternity in Limbo. What kind of creative force did they believe in? A ogre? A simpleton?
The idiocy of Limbo was recently repudiated by the Vatican; yet for hundreds of years they attempted impose this illogical, insulting doctrine on believers.
Ms. Coney Barrett, were she to be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court, will doubtless draw on her experience as a religious conservative. But she must understand that any attempt to impose that experience on a nation born in religious, spiritual, and intellectual liberty could only lead to disunion and disaster.
32
Forget it. There is no way on earth that Trump would appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. The man's a misogynist of the worst type for God's sake.
3
Democrats need to grow a spine and stand up to Trumps pick. Everything this man has touched has turned out corrupt. For Donnelly, and elected's like him, grow a spine and say no. Stand for something for Gods sake. Argue that you will NOT support candidates that are not willing to support the US Constitution. No Christian Sharia law. I will be voting for ONLY democrats in November. Trump is a threat to this country. Block him by turning Congress BLUE.
18
No one can ''judge'' whatever is in one's heart in regard to their beliefs, which is why religion (or the 1st Amendment ) is being used as a cudgel to wage the culture wars all over again.
I am going to declare (although I have no direct proof) that the U.S. is no where near a country of around 80% Christians. ( or whatever the percentage may be now) I don't think it is even 50%. I don't think it is even 35% which is approximately what the ''base'' is of republicans.
One only need look at the massive drop off in organized religion and the numbers actually going to church. One need only look at the hypocritical stances ( that go against almost every Christian tenet ) where some might ''preach'' one thing and do the diametrically opposed action.
One need only look at the massive amount of 501C4's (religious/political entities) that are supposed to do religious activities, but are only funnels for dark money to wage political war.
How can anyone be Christian and separate babies and children from their mothers, whatever the excuse may be ? There are innumerable other acts which are inflicting harm ( or worse ) for no other reason than to supposedly guard a ''Christian white way of life''.
The new way to discriminate is to declare you are religious in your heart and cannot serve someone that goes against your beliefs. This is being extrapolated to everything. ( and winning with a radical right SCOTUS )
Search your heart and instead of dividing, try and come together .
10
After reading the New Testament (which supersedes the brutal old testament), I am ABSOLUTELY positive that Jesus was more interested in the rich helping the poor than in controlling homosexuals. He mentions the poor TENFOLD more that the gays. He would be in favor of taxing the rich to help the poor. Sorry, Catholics, you are hypocritical.
Not to mention that the PRINCE OF PEACE would cry at the prospect of everyone having semi-automatic assault weapons.
Figure it out you hypocrites. Stop saying you are Christian!!!
29
Will, our country already taxes the rich to help the poor.
2
As you know the rich recently received a massive tax cut.
6
Yes Jesus did mention the poor quite a bit. But he said a man should leave home and cling to his wife, not another man. He was a devout practicing Jew who never committed a sin, believed and had faith in the old covenant/testament and believed that homosexuality is a perversion.
1
There goes the support of progressive Roman Catholics, support of Notre Dame alumni and those who understand the complexity of the medicine,theology and culture of abortion in the United States.
Ms. Barrett is only "remotely" catholic(small c ,not upper case C).Her version is her version. She needs lessons in that complexity. A trip to Rome and a discussion with theologians may be helpful.....maybe.
6
Bruni's supreme temptation is about the leftist tendency to go overboard in attacking opponents, with his fear that the backlash created will motivate those with traditional religious values and those who are just tired of the over-the-top attacks will take it out against the Dems at all levels in the mid-term elections. A Trump nominee is not in question-only who it will be. Bruni is not concerned about the horrible rhetoric being dumped on those with religious beliefs. If so, he has had many opportunities to weigh in over the past year. But it is not like this has just started. Middle of the road programs like border enforcement is drawing mobs calling the President and Republicans in general, Nazis. I wish half the morons really understood what real Nazis were and what Nazis did. I have visited concentration camp memorials in Europe bringing my children there to understand the cruelty and horror. We walked through the gates of Dachau where my father stood post in GI uniform during the liberation. Look at those making comment here today. Stigmatizing those who simply demand that the immigration laws be enforced, that the country through its body politic decide who and how many enter this country. The political system has promised twice in my lifetime to control the borders and intentionally failed both times for benefit of getting democrat voters and cheap labor. Screaming, cursing, stopping service and attacking the religious is only the beginning. Sorry Frank.
6
Your prediction makes a lot of sense.
Hopefully she doesn't vote to outright overturn Roe.
But at the same time the courts need to be tethered to the Constitution. Justices are not our philosopher kings and should refrain from legislating from the bench.
4
Just what we need on the bench - someone with less than one year of actually being a judge. The scotus is a lifetime appointment, its jurists should come with significant experience.
10
"Democrats should be equally convinced, and should confront her, fiercely, on those grounds."
ABSOLUTELY.
8
Religion is just institutionalised superstition mostly used throughout history to control the masses, keep them distracted and get them to accept their meagre lot as if it’s part of some grander scheme. These days it’s keep them distracted from the fact that their personal education, health and labour wage is just another way to fatten the wallets of the rich and powerful. Justice Barrett isn’t the problem per se she is just a tool who probably blindly doesn’t understand how she is being used.
7
Gee, and here I thought it was the Leftist Cult Idiotology that was the superstition.......but, OK, I see now...it's the ~4000 year tradition and heritage of wisdom seeking and ethics building of the Judeo-Christian tradition which is 'just a silly superstition'.
Huh....Quick, let's tear down all the nuclear and coal fired plants and replace them with solar farms and wind turbines, and buy huge battery systems, for when it's nite time and the wind ain't bowin...otherwise the seas are gonna rise 300 feet ...uh huh.
5
Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 96 - 3, and any senator back then who didn't know exactly how she would vote on matters relating to women's rights, including abortion issues, as well as civil rights issues in general, would have had to be as ignorant as Trump.
And yet many anti-abortion senators voted for RGB's confirmation. 96 - 3.
1993 seems so long ago.
26
There's already too much religion on the SCOTUS.
A breath of fresh air would be a secular humanist atheist.
28
You may be right in that the humanist atheist only believes in what she/he/they knows. Problem is they do not know as much as they think they do
3
"Help Wanted: Top Supreme Court Judge Wanted"... no experience needed.
15
Watching liberals squirm has been a pleasant by-product of the Trump Administration. I did not vote for him, but I may in 2020: as opposed to the overly polite and courtly Bushes, who accepted left wing viciousness with a smile, Trump actually pushes back on the left and its media acolytes. As noted by Frank, he mischievously looks for ways to expose their hypocrisy and extremism. Honestly, it’s a wonderful thing. Who knew things would work out this well?
10
It's useless to point out that the liberal Trump was pro-choice. It's very sad that shortly after Irish citizens flew home to vote to make abortion legal in Ireland that we are having this discussion yet again. Trump should concentrate on reuniting those already-living children that he so cruelly separated at the border with their parents. The priorities of Trump and his base are not Christian or humane.
10
If Trump nominates an inexperienced, devout Catholic to the Supreme Court, God help us all.
10
This fits right in with a theocratic takeover by the republicans.
The founding fathers knew, without a doubt, that the divisiveness of religion would ruin the country.
It's time for an avowed atheist to be appointed to the court, to represent a large number of Americans.
But Trump is incapable of doing anything wise or just.
8
So this is what it comes down to. Caligula watching the gladiators do bloody battle.
Regardless of the outcome of filling the seat on the Supreme Court, we, the people, are the losers.
11
Until Americans are willing to stand up and challenge religious views as a valid independent basis for government policy and law, this angst will continue. The deference given to religious beliefs as a basis for various laws means that to this day, most Americans still do not appreciate a true separation of church and state. The free exercise of religion clause has become more of a free impostion of religion clause and judges supporting that view will continue to find creative ways to convert those beliefs into established law.
9
We should abandon the idea that abortions needs to be protected via Supreme Court and we have to depend on a partisan court for women's rights. We have to enshrine women's rights through legislation like all other countries. Supreme Court in America has been compromised and cannot be trusted to uphold Constitutional values
9
"While she clerked long ago for Justice Antonin Scalia, her own time on the bench is limited to her eight months on that court."
How can a person with this little experience be considered to the post of justice of the SCOTUS? There must be hundreds better qualified than her.
53
Almost as crazy as nominating a waitress to be a member of Congress.
9
The same way Trump, with his experience, was considered for President.
3
Members of the House of Representatives do not get a life time appointment . Errors in judgement can be corrected by the people every two years.
2
Isn't it odd how the times have changed, and how the New York Times has changed? In 1916, the New York Times led the opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish justice on the Supreme Court. They used the term "radical" for Brandeis, but what the NYT meant by "radical" was "Jew."
By 1932, when Benjamin Cardozo was nominated, and would prove to be the second Jewish justice, the Times had buried its religious prejudices. While many in the nation recoiled at the thought of two Jewish justices on the court at the same time, the Times opined that "seldom, if ever, in the history of the Court has an appointment been so universally commended."
In 2018, the Grey Lady is apparently back in the business of challenging Supreme Court nominees based on their religion. The current code words are different, but the intent is the same. "Jew" and "radical" has been replaced by "the dogma within you." Today, progressives recoil at the thought of an enthusiastic believer of any faith on the bench (except Islam, presumably). It's the same ugly picture, and just as in 1916, the Times is in the vanguard.
But America will prove to be better, and more tolerant, than either the Times or progressives in general.
17
It's not a matter of being disturbed by the fact that she's Catholic, but the fact that she believes religious convictions should supersede secular law. I don't want a Muslim who believes in Sharia over the Constitution. I don't want a Jew who believes in Leviticus over the Constitution. I don't want a Catholic who believes in the Catechisms over the Constitution. Stop with the false handwringing. You know why she's an unacceptable choice, and given racist aesthetic of the Trump administration, it's laughable to turn this around
78
Mr. French, please read the article again. Frank Bruno is quoting Senator Feinstein’s questions, and he explicitly and forcefully disagrees with her approach, calling for the possible nominee to be evaluated solely on her legal views, not on her religion.
4
Wont be surprised if Trump recalls U.S. Vatican Ambassador C. Gingrich if Pope Francis refuses to give an official blessing to Ms. Barret's Supreme Court nomination.
1
Has she expressed a view on evolution, and whether it is legitimate to teach intelligent design as science?
6
Don't confuse Catholic with evangelical. Catholics accept the theory of evolution.
1
Abortion is not important to me. I’m a 70 year old ,overweight man with 4 grown kid s and 6 grand children. Abortion does not impact my life in any way .I’m not for or against it. But it is irritating that when of all the things the Supreme Court could act on ,abortion is the litmus test.Abortion is basically a woman’s issue . It’s not on my list,why should new Justices stand on that one issue
be whether they are appointed or not...It trivializes men’s opinions about what a justice should be. with Plan B ,New IUDs. Most abortion s should be handled earlier
4
Ask one of your grandkids to explain how a theocratic nominee might impact their life. “Justice” and “women’s issues” have something to do with each other in the real world.
1
Remember Prohibition? The largest failed social policy of the 20th century was brought to you by the Methodists who decided that their idea of morality should be the Law of the Land. Oh good! We can now look forward to our nation’s atonement at the hands of those who never learned their history.
7
The law is the law and the constitution is the constitution whether you are Catholic, Jew, Muslim or atheist. Justices have to base their arguments on law, precedent and evidence. There is no reason to disqualify or traduce Ms Barrett on the basis of her religion and those who do so disgrace themselves.
9
She has stated that she cannot sentence anyone to death based on her devout Cathloic religious beliefs.
Given that the Federal laws include offenses for which the penalty is death, some such cases will undoubtedly come before the Supreme Court on appeal.
Without opining on the morality of the death penalty, how can someone who holds the position she has stated rule on death penalty cases?
Either she would have to recuse herself, which could lead to a 4-4 deadlock that would nullify the Supreme Court as an appelate tribunal, or she would be one vote for a pre-ordained outcome, before even hearing the facts or the arguments in the case.
How can such a person sit on the Supreme Court?
6
Joe,
Supreme Court Judges have said
that they will not affirm death sentences.
John:
It is one thing to decide, on the facts of the case, that a death penalty is inappropriate.
It is an entirely different matter to decide, a priori, that the death penalty when provided by law, cannot be enforced BECAUSE OF YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Congress in their "infinite wisdom" writes the laws, and POTUS gets to agree or disagree (veto). In the case of a veto Congress gets to try again, including overriding the veto.
Without getting into the morality of the death penalty, if the law specifies that death is the penalty (for example under federal law for certain specific offenses), and if the accused is proven to have committed acts that the law penalizes, why does a judge get to say "I cannot sentence ANYONE to death" in the face of the law?
A District Court judge or even an Appeals Court judge can say "Let somebody else hear this case", when there are many other judges who can hear the case in the place of that one judge. However, a Supreme Court Justice does not get to substitute somebody else to hear a case for him or her. There are 9 Justices, and NO SUBSTITUTES.
If you cannot perform the job, you should not TAKE the job. PERIOD.
I’ll take the bait. We have enough partisan Catholics members of the Supreme Court.
8
All religions are asinine and the most ardent followers are always the most narrow minded.
37
Would you include the current Pope in the legions of the narrow minded?
As a Catholic, reading this article and many of the comments are depressing. Although President Kennedy's election should have resolved this debate long ago, there is nothing inconsistent with practicing Catholicism and being a public servant. Senator Feinstein's scrutiny of Judge Barrett's religious beliefs, when she was appearing for her Sixth Circuit nomination, bordered upon religious animus. There are already six Catholics, including Justice Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. Worldwide, an estimated 1.2 billion practice the faith. In this day of age, one's faith is not an appropriate subject to consider when evaluating one's fitness for office. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case.
11
As a Catholic, I agree with you 100%. However, I think the concern about Judge Barrett is her membership in People for Praise. It sounds like her faith may play more of a role in her life and work than the other Justices who are currently on the Court.
9
I am Catholic. I do not object to Ms. Barrett on the grounds of her Catholicism, but on her membership in the People of Praise. It is in large part based on the principle of male authority and dominance. For instance, they enshrine 1 Timothy 2:12 - “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” - in their hierarchy, their social structure, and their teachings. Their hierarchy is set up so that women are always at the bottom of the pile. Single women are under the “headship” of a married woman, who is under the “headship” of her husband, who is under the “headship”of another man, who is under the “headship” of another man, etc. Each woman is expected to submit to the advice and influence of not only her “head” but also to the advice and influence of all the men who are above her in the hierarchy. The women I knew in the group were so twisted in knots that they literally fretted about making long distance phone calls without their husband’s permission. If she has been a member of this group for decades, I do not see how she can be an impartial judge.
13
The point is the US Constitution comes first not the religious dogma of any particular faith.
If you cannot fulfill an oath to uphold the Constitution for ALL citizens, then you need to live out a different path.
People do not want clerics, zealots, or theocrats as Judges for a reason. There are plenty of talented and unconflicted candidates out there.
3
I'm as far left a liberal Democrat as anyone can be without back strain, and I remember how Billy Graham crusaded against JFK because JFK was Catholic and therefore supposedly a Vatican puppet, not to mention all the revolting stuff over the years about the "Israel lobby" and its supposed dual loyalty, and of course all its money and influence, and I am damned if I will play that game, which any fool can play, and which Trump plays all the time. You don't like it? I don't either, but last election day I didn't go around saying oh, her emails. I voted.
8
Catholicism is a manifest in many political persuasions. Catholicism would seem to call for a society that cares for the poor, forgives the sinners, protects children (i know, I know), seeks peace, and stands for justice. It would seem to be about love. But there are other strains of Catholicism that are misogynistic, hateful, damning of others, and protective of people who would hurt the poor, the sick, and others in need. There is a kind of consistency in the church’s pro-life position (as the church is also anti-death penalty, pro-economic justice, and anti-war). What should be considered is what she calls herself (in this case Catholic), but by what and how she acts, speaks, thinks, and writes. Her character and intellect are important. Is she a clear thinking? Is she partisan? Is she willing to embrace orthodoxy or reject it based the needs of justice and constitutional principles? From what I am readying, she is not my kind of Catholic, my kind of judge, or my kind of person. At this point I think I am judging her by the company she keeps; the little I know of her is that Trump considers her suitable for the role, and a bulwark against progressive jurisprudence. That’s enough for me to be deeply concerned.
8
The People of Praise is a misogynistic group. I know - I used to be a member. They teach and strongly believe that women, both single and married, must always be subject to male "guidance". For example, in their hierarchy, all married women are under the "headship" of their husbands. The husbands are under the "headship" of other men. You, as a wife, are expected not only to submit to your husband but also submit to the advice and influence of however many men top your husband in the group. Single woman are under the " headship" of a married woman, who is under the headship of her husband, and so forth, so single women are definitely at the bottom of the heap. Plus, I was seriously advised, in the case of domestic abuse, to pray that God would "put me in the right space" to cope with it. Mustn't threaten male authority or the sanctity of marriage! One of the healthiest things I ever did was get out of that organization. And no, if Ms. Barret has been a member for decades, there is no way she can be an impartial judge.
140
I wish they had a branch in Manhattan as I would become a member as would many faithful Catholics. This is what is needed today in our Godless society. That is why we are seeing so many problems in our world today due to a lack of religion.
That is wrong on principle and wrong on policy. If Amy Barrett has religious views making it impossible for her to deliberate objectively on the issue of Roe v. Wade ( which as a charismatic Catholic by virtue of faith she is bound to to have), then questioning her adequacy to serve on the Supreme Court is reasonable and necessary. Why should progressives pretend that faith has no impact on decision making? Conservatives certainly know better. Get real, or get off the playing field.
10
If Trump had picked an anti-American Muslim, I am sure that the Democrats would be falling all over themselves to be the first to vote in favor of his or her nomination.
The fact that this woman was questioned about her religion by Diane Feinstein is an absolute disgrace. And this from the party that nominated John F. Kennedy for President.
How low can the Democrats go?
10
They can go very low as is evidenced by their disgraceful behavior. Why anyone today would vote for this has been party is mind boggling.
She is the perfect nominee given how offensive and idiotic Senator Feinstein looked grilling her over her faith. And how are white old men like Senator Schumer going look attacking her. And feminists who think only that women who pass an Emily's list litmus test actually count as women despite half the women in the country disagreeing with them on major issues will look equally bad. Given that the Democrats want a fight on this nominee Trump might as well give them the fight that will do the most damage to them among fair minded voters.
4
This is so transparent it is nauseating. Trump thinks that by choosing a right wing anti abortive WOMAN he can somehow blunt criticism from the voters? Fat chance! Additionally this woman is a religious fanatic who belongs to a fringe sect in which she answers to—I kid you not—a HANDMAID.
9
Sitting across your northern border, I seriously await a civil war. Be warned, if the awful hard right federal conservatives get in the next election in Canada ex pm stephen harper refused to accept draft dodgers from the Iraq war. Not to sure why except he is a hard right wing extremist...same type of evangelic that petty pence is...has to be in jerusalem for the rapture and he is a bff with weird bolton..in washington and europe promoting your next war....the invasion of Iran and regime change. So very frightening.
You need a new way to select judges. In Canada they are nominated by a panel of their peers...other lawyers....not extremist groups like that heritage society. A list of potential judges is prepared and the Minister of Justice selects them from the list. There was a battle...which he lost....over one of stephen harper's choices.
10
You missed the escape hatch built into the Canadian Constitution - the politicians - provincially or federally - can override any decision made by your Supreme Court via the clause dérogatoire - maybe your citizenry don't trust the judiciary as much as you may think they do.
2
I was discussing the selection of judges....I am not a lawyer. What the Canadian Constitution has is the NOT WITHSTANDING CLAUSE which can overrule Federal law i.e. Quebec and the language laws that mandate bilingualism.
1
Not Ivy League! OMG!
Only 8 months experience in the robe! Kagan had none. Neither did Rehnquist. Neither did Warren.
She hasn't changed since she was ok'd for the Court of Appeals last year. If her religious convictions are so scary now they should have been then as well.
10
They were, and plenty of concern was raised then, especially within Indiana, about how someone so clearly unqualified and partisan could be a federal judge
6
Ah, I see Mr. Bruni and the NYT have once again taken their marching orders from the Dems to start raising "concerns" and "dismay" to do a pre-emptive strike about this possible nominee due to her Catholicism.
Alas, JFK and Al Smith could not be reached for comment.
12
. . . nor could William Jennings Bryan.
2
William Jennings Bryan was not Catholic.
Well, pick a lane.
McConnell denied Garland for absurd political reasons and made a mockery of the process. Trump wants religious activists on the bench now.
Mitch advised for letting the “will of the people” be heard before he decided he “didn’t want to hear from the people”.
1
A Catholic woman nominated to the highest court in the nation by someone who could easily be said to embody the characteristics of the mythological anti-Christ...
This really is ‘The Divine Comedy’.
24
The troll in the White House.
Come on Frank, let it all hang out
. You can do much worse than this. You know the four letter words and when it comes to the Prez you know how to use them.
Meanwhile, you really said nothing about the Judge that should disqualify her. But what difference does that make?
5
She's totally unqualified- just like Thomas. No substantive time having been a judge.
5
Barrett has more experience than ELENA KAGAN, who had none and was merely a personal friend of Barack Obama.
I didn't see liberals getting upset about Kagan at all.
The threat to Roe makes me wonder: Given Donald Trump's well-documented lifestyle, has the abortion procedure been performed at his behest? Bet Michael Cohen knows.
29
"He didn’t want to feed the troll in the White House" you say in a low remark about the President of the US. Name calling has been a fallacy since Aristotle identified it as such 2400 years ago. But you ended your article with a A Logical fallacy. You are small man indeed.
6
It's not an insult, it's an obvious statement of fact to anyone with eyes
7
Hmmm. Mr. Trump certainly has avoided name calling. We should all follow his sterling example.
14
I think there is a compiled list of Trump’s slurs for others including 3 women senators in the last couple of days. Maybe update the files.
8 years of lies about the former President’s birth place was the workings of a sick mind. You simply cannot reinvent Trump as dignified.
1
And she will make the term minority refer to religion again - that's Jews, Muslims, Buddists ... That was something Jack Kennedy, a Catholic who understood the need to represent all of eliminated. Being a ghetto Jew again is not something to which I look forward.
2
YO! TRUMP!
How about Merrick Garland?
43
Her concern was just? What tripe. Those who live by the bill of rights should be ready to have it go against them. Abortion is the sacrament of the left.
4
The religious right is neither.
5
No matter how disguised the objection may be, the core of many critical comments about Ms. Coney Barret concern her Catholicism.
Just as JFK, a staunch Catholic, should not have been judged on his Catholicism. Ms. Barrett cannot be judged upon her religion, but on her professional ability to judge cases according to the law and precedent.
When JFK was elected, it symbolically ended a period of often viscious anti- Catholicism which had permeated this country for over 100 years, when Irish Catholics first "threatened" the religious establishment. When Al Smith, a Catholic, was nominated as a Democratic presidential candidate in 1928, the fear and hatred of Catholicism was the primary force in his defeat. Then, and I hope not now, demagogues and pure bigots proclaimed that the Pope's dogma would rule the U.S. if he were elected .
In most Muslim majority countries, abortion is prohibited except when the life of the mother is at risk. It would be wrong to judge a Muslim nominee on whether he or she adheres to such a strict prohibition.
It is similarly wrong, and creates a very dangerous precedent if, once again, the religious beliefs of a nominee are put on trial to determine that nominee's fitness.
9
JFK assuring the American public and a female judicial candidate in a religious group that assigns you “a handmaiden” to report to are two completely different attitudes.
JFK was working for all of Americans, not partisan groups or zealots.
Except she offering to judge as a theocrat it sounds like- completely unlike JFK. That is Trump’s criteria isn’t it?
1
My Catholic grandfather from Ireland and living in Boston as an Independent, voted for Al Smith and was terribly disappointed that he did not win. I thought we had put all that behind us but I guess not. No conservative Catholics Need Apply is alive and well on the Supreme Court today.
Whoever this nominee, it will produce a conundrum for many Republicans. For years they have played abortion and other religious freedom cards, to obtain the votes of the religious right. Behind that façade, is their ultimate goal of moving the money in the direction of those who buy them off, as witnessed by the the recent Ohio v AmEx, SC case.
The problem now is, if Roe v Wade is actually overturned, the fall out, will be dramatic for the party. The left will be galvanized or years to come. Perhaps, the right is willing to give up Congressional seats now that the courts will be in good hands for decades to come. After all they are more than aware, how much the economy and country at large, can be and is manipulated through the courts.
It doesn't seem like they can gerrymander enough votes to over come the situation. Then again, with the courts propensity to deny voting rights, who knows. The full power of the court, may yet to be seen.
5
Sir, with due respect for your insightful and thought provoking narratives, in this column, you have further cemented a far too common concept that there is a supreme being, a god, a wishful thought or hope that something, somewhere, somehow can automatically resolve the problems that afflict this planet, IF only the entire world could agree on which supreme being (for lack of a better world - perhaps "Force") unto which we should surrender our lives.
In other words, your condemnation that a review of this candidate might reflect an appraisal of her religious faith is of question.
May I remind you, until you, she, the Pope, any man/woman of the cloth can prove there is with certifiable fact that such an entity actually exists, "faith" is a human constructed concept of how to deal with the vicissitudes of life. Nothing more!!!!
“The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said, inelegantly, drawing censure from people on various points of the political spectrum. Her concern was just. But the response to the way that she expressed it illustrated the perils of seeming to equate people with, and measure them by, their creeds. That’s as wrong as expecting someone to adhere to a certain faith."
Senator Feinstein is correct!!! Religious "dogma" is a predominant facet of problems that face every society on this planet. That it draws "censure from people on various points of the political spectrum", simply proves my point. Religion
dominates politics today. Sad!
1
There are currently four RCs on the Supreme Court. Barrett would return the RCs to the majority again. I think they are dangerous.
4
" I hope that others in the party can muster the same discipline."
All it will take is three Dems to start foaming at the mouth for Trump to declare the Elite Left is condemning his choice because she is a good Christian. "So sad."
3
Let it go. Let it happen. Then we'll see the firestorm it creates when they overturn it
2
Eight months on the bench. Lets concentrate on that.
4
(Revised last sentence)
How would you like to argue a separation of church and state case in a courtroom with “In God We Trust” above the judges head? Or have to carry around in your pocket the name of, or have to pledge allegiance to, a god that may not be your god? Or have your nation’s leader’s inauguration opened and closed with a prayer, or every business day of congress begun with a prayer, or every political event end with the prayer “God, bless America”? We did it to ourselves and we said nothing. It never used to bother me, but with age I see the insidiousness of it. It makes welcome an individual like Barrett and makes disparaging any questions about her ability to keep separate her religious views from her work. If we were stronger in the past we would not have this problem in the present.
2
If we get one more overtly religious appointment to the court who is unable to follow the Constitution in “Separation of Church and State” we might as well give up and just rename it -
“The Supreme ‘Being’ Court!”
2
A law clerk, professor, then becomes a judge, never practiced law. Basically little experience. Plus time off with 7 kids. When did she work?
14
I thought liberals liked working mothers. I guess not if they are conservative Republicans.
In a confirmation hearing, one could ask Ms. Barrett about various birth control methods, including the IUD, and whether or not she felt women should be educated about each to make a choice or instead be told which method to use. She could also be asked how someone with such a short period of time as a judge should qualify for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Would she approve of a liberal judge with the same amount of experience as herself to serve on the Supreme Court if the circumstances were reversed?
For people who think adding an X chromosome to the Supreme Court counts for much, I offer two words: Phyllis Schlafly. <<chill>>
9
Whoever Trump picks will be a disaster for everyone who's not an aging wealthy white Christian conservative male. Don't be surprised if abortion becomes available only to women who's lives are endangered by their pregnancies. All other American pregnant women will have to give it up for adoption or travel to another country for abortions. It won't be a pretty sight.
5
Amy Coney Barrett would be TAKING what by rights should be Gorsuch's seat. Why any decision coming out of SCOTUS can be considered legitimate is beyond me.
Is there a place in America where a justice can judge and impose her Catholicism onto a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, an atheist, and Buddhist, or believer in Voodoo. Perhaps she should only judge those of her own.
“The dogma lives loudly within you” is a perfectly good question by Feinstein. We have the right to know if religion will be influencing or guiding the legal decisions she will make on behalf of ALL Americans. Wouldn't the conservatives demand to know if a Muslim SCOTUS justice candidate believed in imposing Shariah law on all of us?
7
Feinstein's "The dogma lives loudly within you" was not a question but a blatantly bigoted statement. Shame on Ms. Feinstein, and on you, too, it seems.
Did Saint John F. Kennedy use the Presidency to make everyone wear crosses around their necks, or move the Papacy from Rome to Washington, DC? I don't recall reading that in my history texts.
By the way, I am not Catholic but I don't like to see any religion attacked.
4
An opportunity to divide Americans and make them hate each other more than they already do. What more could Donald J. Trump possibly ask for?
10
Barrett openly avows faith over the Constitution *disavows* Miranda, the all-important Row v. Wade and all civil rights actions that place women equal with men and people(s) of color with whites. She "judges," not by rule of law (which seems to be a mere convenience when she wishes to use it), but by Catechism of the Catholic Church. And let's not leave out, she's a member of a group called, "People of Praise," a cult no less wacky than Scientology in its hold over its members. Barrett should not be teaching much less practicing law or up for a seat on the high court. But she *should* be disbarred.
4
Conservative religion met racism and misogyny through Trump the matchmaker and it is a ménage à trois thriller. I think you are very wrong to say we should avoid the issue of conservative religion's dogmatic reinsertion into our lives in this debate about the court.
2
Can we admit that this kind of religious fanaticism is based in ignorance? To believe the fantastical myths that enable one to be a dogmatic conservative Catholic requires a suspension of intelligent skepticism that should disqualify one for the SCOTUS. Alito and Thomas are religious fanatics, who demonstrate the inability to reason, as their rationality is clouded by illogical faith. We hardly need another justice like them. Someday, in the not too distant future, the US will evolve past its superstitious, religious dark ages, and join the enlightenment. Let’s not delay that time by appointing such a troglodyte to the SCOTUS.
6
Very Star Trek of you. Question: can you scientifically prove God doesn’t exist? Saying people will “evolve” out of religion is very Silicon Valley and progressive of you, but you forget that the Nazis and the Communists were both Godless and anti-religion,and butchered 100 million people. “Evolve” at your own risk, friend.
3
2018 years later . . . STILL WAITING !
1
But we are still counting the number of humans that have been killed "In the Name of GOD".
1
I can see it coming - from the same playbook Bush 41 used when Thurgood Marshall's seat became open. Nominate the youngest, most conservative black man (in this case white woman) you can find and dare the Democrats to oppose her. I was disappointed to see Bush stoop so low. None of us should be surprised if Trump does it.
2
First Trump succeeded in making weak minded Americans, proudly blue collar, vote for an oligarchy. Now he is conning just the same into support of a theocratic judiciary.
5
Ahhh, weak minded Americans. The Hillary Defense for why she lost. But wait....many of those fools also voted for Obama on 2012. What about that? Could it be that those fly over folks decided to go with the lesser of two evils? Did this ever occur to you or did your liberal arrogance blind you to that possibility?
7
And just to inform you, I’ve been a blue collar Americans my whole life. And I use my own name. Achilles.
4
How outrageous that someone would take their faith seriously.
9
How outrageous that we would select a justice who believes that judges should follow their religious convictions rather than secular laws
11
"Faith" is what religion gives you, because it has no evidence.
I don't take superstition and delusion seriously.
7
How absurd that superstition still carries the day over logic and scientific evidence.
4
She supports institutionalized protections for pediphiles.
5
Since 11/8/2016 Democrats have made absolute fools of themselves in trying to undo a Presidential election.
No reason to believe they'll stop now.
7
I think the national political director of the ACLU said it best: "We should start envisioning and conceptualizing a world without Roe."
2
As a staunch Catholic, Barrett’s life is clearly controlled by mythology and superstition. As a woman, she should be appalled by the second class status given to females in the RC church. Has she ever commented about the continuing sex abuse scandal? Probably not. America can do better.
5
I see that blatant religious bigotry is raising its head within the Democratic Party. What a mistake!
The Democrats seem to have forgotten that Saint John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was a Catholic and managed to lead the country without letting his religion interfere with his Presidency. How arrogant of the Democrats, then, to suggest that Ms. Barrett could not do likewise. After all, she is a woman. And all women can do anything except Republican women, is that it? This is a double hit, against Catholics AND women.
Puh-leeze, can't the Democrats stop slithering down into the muck with the Trumpers? We know how Democrats and Trumpers will vote, so we should focus on undecideds and moderates. Calling Ivanka Trump a vile name, saying that Barron Trump should be locked up with pedophiles, tossing a senior White House staffer out of a restaurant and demonizing Catholics can only convince the undecideds and moderates to vote for Trump and Republicans because Democrats seem so wacky and disgusting.
We can win on our merits in November and in 2020 IF we can control ourselves and stop feeding Trump's Twitter machine.
6
No one who believes that religious beliefs should supersede secular law has any place in a judge's chair, much less in the Supreme Court. Period. Full stop
6
"Not one [of Schumer's tweets] mentioned religion."
The letter linked by Schumer titled "Unacceptable" (Feb. 27, 2012) is all about religion:
"The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions ..."
Further, the letter is signed by various religious leaders and others, including "Amy Barrett".
Barrett should be asked to justify the letter's disparagement of the term "accommodation":
'The Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an "accommodation" for religious institutions ...'
'This so-called "accommodation" changes nothing ...'
In fact, "accommodation" is a term used in US law. Google "religious accommodation site:gov" for details.
Two adopted orphans from Haiti - that speaks volumes about her.
7
If we have one thing in this country that typifies tribalism, it is the "my God is better than your God" meme. Lots of gods out there on planet earth: Islam; Judaism; Buddhism; Confucianism; Christianity; Hinduism; Sikhism plus a few others - not to mention the sects within those religious beliefs. The point is nobody knows. So why stick somebody on the Supreme Court who is a rigid adherent to anything.
8
Then again, why put someone on the court who is a Godless secularist? Isn’t that another form of “belief”? Humanists love to point out that the existence of God cannot be proven. They tend to overlook the corollary: the existence of God cannot be disproven either.
3
R.Anderson - You left out The New York Stock Exchange.
2
Another cosmic stroke of luck for our president! The prospect of a pretty 46 year old mother of 7, ultra-conservative federal judge who may well be nominated as the fourth female Justice to the Supreme Court replacing Anthony Kennedy who vacated his swing vote seat last Friday. Judge Amy Comey Barrett, is also a member of a religious group, People of Praise, a Catholic secular group whose members profess intense commitment to their faith. The group is a charismatic Christian Covenant Community whose roots began in pentacostal and evangelistic movements. The President is also considering several other federal judges, with whom he met at his Bedminster, NJ golf club this past weekend. One of the 6 or more judges may make the final cut before he announces his nominee for Justice Kennedy's seat next monday.
After President Trump's announcement, he will fly off to meet with our former allies at the NATO Summit in Brussels (11 July), followed by his flight to Helsinki to meet with his friend, Russia's Czar, Vlad Putin on the 16th. Somewhere in that itinerary, stuffed like a derma, chances are great that President Trump will play a few rounds of relaxing golf at his Scottish Golf Club in Aberdeen, Scotland, and possibly make a meet and greet with Queen Elizabeth II in England. Trump's big reveal of his Supreme Court pick Monday, followed by his hegira through Belgium, Finland, Scotland and England next week has us all agog.
2
Brilliant move by Trump if he nominates her! The Liberals will be in a vicious catch 22. The nomination hearing will be a disaster for the Democrats and only strengthen the GOP base for 2018 elections.
One last thing.. I thought Evangelicals detested Catholics because they are mired in symbolism and bow to a Papal dictator? Funny how all the pro-lifers seem to come together in the end..
2
If is called strength in numbers which has helped the pro life movement. This has been a good thing for the babies in the womb.
OK, so let's say Amy Coney Barrett gets the seat on the bench and along with Gorsuch, they happen to overturn Roe v. Wade. Then what? Republicans (conservatives) have been complaining as long as I can remember about poor, inner city folks having too many kids and "raping" the system with all the welfare, food stamps, and other aid packages and entitlements that are paid for by the public's tax dollars. So, with abortion made illegal, they will have even MORE "mouths to feed" and take from the system. Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me... (To be clear, these are NOT my views - just ones I've witnessed from my 47 years on this planet and growing up in a Republican household).
7
Her Catholic beliefs should also dispose her to having
"an option for the poor," welcoming the stranger,
aiding the refugee, helping the sick. Donald ..be careful what you wish for.
6
Well, I suppose we can at least be happy that it's not Judge Jeanine from Fox News... but we're not out of the woods on that one yet either.
7
Yes, in this extraordinarily lawless time, of course we should take it for granted that a devout Catholic nominated by a president who is mentally unbalanced, and being investigated for multiple crimes, will uphold the Constitution.
These people Times opinion writers like to call Conservatives, won't do anything radical at all, like make Christianity the state religion. No chance of that.
2
Note to Democrats: there is nothing sacred about the number nine.
Not an Ivy Leaguer? ... And from " flyover country ", Indiana? ... She gets my vote.
7
Mr. Bruni says "Not one mentioned religion. He didn’t want to feed the troll in the White House the meal of his choosing. I hope that others in the party can muster the same discipline" but he isn't following his own advice here!
2
Shouldn't any potential Supreme Court justice be trying to convince us that their personal views *will not*affect their decisions, rather than announcing that their decisions will be based on those views?
They're judges, not politicians. Their commitment is to the law, not to the party.
6
What I think Liberals fear about Amy Coney Barrett is that she is a strong, smart, capable, articulate CONSERVATIVE WOMAN. That constitutes in own special kind of sexism.
5
Actually that's one of the areas where conservative will never have enough on liberals. Liberals are overwhelming in support of women that are strong, smart, capable and articulate. You are just taking cheap shots.
10
It's not a cheap shot. Look at the way Liberals have treated Sarah Sanders, Elaine Chao, Nikki Haley and others compared to how they Liberal women. It's totally a double standard.
It's going to be the red states that end up dealing with waves of illegal abortions and unwanted children. I hope they are ready. It's pretty bad news for the women living in those states - they are the one who will be stuck with the result of unwanted pregnancies. But they should, by all means, emigrate out of the darkness and into the light. There's plenty of progressive and enlightened sunshine out here on the West Coast. All are welcome. Just, please don't bring your guns and bibles with you. Donate those to the local home for underage delinquents when you leave.
9
I suspect anything the Democrats might say or ask will become the target of right-wing criticism. I don't see what DiFi said as being incorrect--they are 'approving' a Supreme Court justice, not a pope. Loud proclamations of adherence to principles different from, and often contrary to, our Constitution should prompt questions.
The primary question is: "if you religious beliefs dictate a different conclusion from that dictated by our Constitution and laws, can you put your beliefs to the side and rule only on the Constitution and laws?" While I'm sure our right-wing evangelical brethren will object (they will object to anything Democrats ask), that is a fair question for any court nominee.
A negative answer indicates movement toward establishment of religion, in contravention of the First Amendment.
7
Since abortion has been around since the earliest days of recorded medical history, the ploy to claim stopping it with laws and courts is in our power, is the most outrageous, cynical and evil partisan scheme ever devised, and apparently will be wielded with false righteousness until the end of time.
6
Our Prime Minister is a devout Catholic. This does not disqualify him from being our Prime Minister because for those of us of different faiths the laws do not dictate our morality. It was Justin's father who stated you cannot legislate morality.
I really have very few additional comments about your country but I am sure My Brother Jesus would try and get the Sadducees out of the legislatures, the courts and the judiciary.
Our sacred texts that destroying a foetus in the womb carries a token fine I do not know if abortion is even a sin but I do know it is beyond my level of knowledge and is outside the fiduciary responsibility of peace order and good governance.
The first commandment in our sacred text is be fruitful and multiply and in 2018 when I look around a loving God is telling us we have multiplied enough and it is now time to learn subtraction.
4
I understand that Republicans like to win support by painting the left as anti-religious. By making up nonsense about atheists/humanists. I'm not daunted. And I don't care that I won't get many "recommends" for this.
Americans have a constitutional right to practice religion. So be it. They take full advantage. They also have freedom to proclaim alien abductions and Elvis sightings. They can say that the moon landing and Sandy Hook didn't take place. They can believe that evolution didn't happen, that climate change is a hoax, and that vaccines do more harm than good. They can revel in their ignorance.
But, we would take a person who believes in magic, and that an invisible, supernatural man in the sky created the world, knows everything, and can and does solve human problems, and put that person in the WH, legislature, or on the SCOTUS. Notwithstanding delusional thinking, we put them in charge of critical decision-making activities.
Religion is no different than any other form of opinion. It should be analyzed in the same manner and credited, or discredited, similarly. In the false name of "politeness," we have let religion off the hook, and that has hurt us badly in the centuries since the enlightenment.
I don't care if this comment helps Trump sell his snake oil. We need to overcome our backward superstitions and brainwashings. They are a leading characteristic that make us vulnerable to Trump-like charlatans and his ilk in the first place.
15
Reading your post, I understood what you meant when you said that Republicans only like to paint liberals as anti-religious. Thank goodness you provided such a clarifying caricature of religious people.
3
"While she [Barrett] clerked long ago for Justice Antonin Scalia, ..."
"... whether she [Barrett] could properly separate her fidelity to Catholic tenets from her duty to interpret the law for all Americans."
Scalia rigorously separated his judgments about the law and his Catholicism:
"My religious faith can give me a personal view on the right or wrong of abortion; but it cannot make a text say yes where it in fact says no ..."
See "Faith and Judging" in "Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived" by Scalia, Scalia, and Whelan.
3
This is naive. Scalia's opinions on gay rights issues were deeply prejudiced by his Catholicism. His opinions reek of his personal distaste and discomfort with homosexuality, and often veer into moralizing entirely unrelated to the juridical question at hand. And his public pronouncements on the subject made it even clearer that he was unable to divorce his feelings from his legal judgment.
3
>
This one is out of her mind, but in the end, I don't think DJT will trust a woman. She may regain normal human consciousness and become another David Souter.
3
"her time on the court could easily cover four decades." is ridiculous. Term limits for these politicians portraying as judges and for the representative branch - 10 yrs for the justices and 2 terms for congress.
2
No offense, but I'm quite confident that Amy Coney Barrett can check her personal beliefs at the door and apply the Constitution to the facts of any case. I suppose what rightly gives many on the left concern is that many of their gains did not come from within the four corners of the constitution, but they were instead created out of thin air. Unfortunately, the gravy train is over, and originalists will rightly interpret the supreme law of the land as it was intended.
3
"Originalist": def. noun. "Someone who will agree with my own opinions on all matters legal and moral, whether or not I have any legal training or knowledge whatsoever."
1
There is little reason to focus on Ms. Barrett's religion. It is sufficient that she has little experience as a judge.
9
Clearly Mr. Bruni is worried about the possibility that Ms. Barrett might be Trump's appointee. Opposing a woman might make Democrats look bad to female voters. But opposing her because of her Catholicism is pointless. The legal opposition to Roe is not based on religion but on the fact that it is bad law. There is no reference to abortion in the Constitution and finding a right to abortion in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution is another way of saying "I'll decide based on my personal preferences rather than the law." There are lots of pro-choice folks (including myself) who think that Roe was a bad decision. It likely won't be overturned - just because it's been the law for decades - but it easily could be if the Court decided to follow the Constitution.
1
I have nothing against Catholics - being the first in over 400 years in my male line not to be born one - and understand that there are several different varieties (my wife taught for years in a Sacred Heart school and those nuns are treasures). But an atmosphere that declares that a male-dominated hierarchy is headed by an infallible male seems very likely to inculcate an acceptance of tyranny when transported to the political spectrum. I find that worrisome...and not just a little.
In discussing the Court and religion (and its preponderance of Catholics), much is made of the Church's polity. I believe that misses the point. It's much more about ecclesiastical structure. The Roman Catholic Church is hierarchical, much more so than any other religion. The Episcopal Church is not quite as hierarchical, but clearly cants in that direction. Mainstream Protestant religions vest their power in assemblies, presbyteries or congregations. Judaism, like Islam, has no popes or bishops.
There are no mainstream protestants on the Court. Its decisions over the past several years (whilst Catholic-dominated) have tended to favor government and business arguments for largeness and centralization. This just doesn't fit with traditional American values.
To see evangelicals fall over themselves in adoration of a Catholic Court is to see a polity alignment of convenience triumph over historical concerns regarding structure. It is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory.
4
On reading the sentiment by which you uphold the title of your piece - she "talks readily and proudly about her Catholicism, making no bones about its presence at the center of her life" - my reaction was a loud "So what!" Some day there a judge may be appointed who is an unbending atheist, a Buddhist, a Sunni . . . These are not grounds on which to declare a person incapable of rational judgment, of upholding the Constitution, of arguing cogently with the other eight justices. So what, Mr. Bruni?
1
We shouldn't be afraid of asking her if she supports abortion and will rule against it We should also ask her if:
-- the 1st Amendment grants businesses the right to exclude people from their premises on the grounds of the owner's religious beliefs;
-- if local police may shoot a suspect if (s)he's running away unarmed;
-- known Falsehoods spoken by a Mad King are protected under the 1st amendment;
-- if Congress can refuse to allow a President to nominate someone to the Supreme Court.
And, if she's in favor of democracy, and why.
4
It won’t be Coney Barrett. It will be Amul Thapar.
He is very young, conservative, and accomplished, but that’s only part of the consideration.
In this election year, Democrats are making immigration the center line of attack against President Trump, and by association, all Republicans. President Trump will counter by nominating the “son of immigrants” who embodies the American Dream. Democrats can say whatever they want, but attacks on Thapar will be framed/viewed as an attack on immigrants.
Prepare to hear the term “proud son of Indian immigrants” about 1,000 times between next Monday and the end of September.
8
Ahh... that touchy subject of religion. I notice that Frank only mentioned Feinstein’s roundly condemned statements of “dogma” during Barrett’s last confirmation hearing, and not the Judge’s elegant and coherent response refuting Feinstein’s bias. As both a progressive and person of faith, I recognize in the column the barely concealed animus toward religion that motivates so many of my fellow citizens. Instead of avoiding her religion for political reasons as Frank suggests, wouldn’t it be great to honestly believe that a candidate’s religion is far less relevant than her legal views?
The only end game to the divisions in this nation is separation. If our system of governance is based on the undoing of each policy that came before, the nation remains ineffective and will collapse. The historic divisions that will be sowed, no matter who is nominated to the justice seat, will never be solved politically, and therefore must be negotiated through a treaty. The red states can keep their white, Trump folks, Putin, North Korea, and endless notions about the criminalization of poverty, while the blue states keep their wealth and align themselves with better angels of the constitution, and a functioning democracy. This is no way for over half of us to live our lives, and there is no way out. Women and children and most Americans deserve to be happy and free from oppressive politics. Let's begin the divorce proceedings now. Any other notion is futile. Let Mitch become President of the red states forever and lead the new Republican kingdom he so espouses. The Supreme Court is now irrelevant. Appoint Amy, the right's Madonna. In forty years, her Supreme Court will be gone with the wind wrapped tightly to the new kingdom of red states whose citizens will be trapped in death, disease, and notions of hyper religious prosperity. We are all Muslim tribes now.
4
The deal made by the founders was very simple and equitable to all: nobody gets to have their faith-based beliefs made into laws for everyone. That is why the first clause of the first amendment is right up front.
4
Steve-"The deal made by the founders was very simple and equitable to all: nobody gets to have their faith-based beliefs made into laws for everyone."
That may be well and good but the Constitution is only as good as the (wo)men who uphold it. The republicans continuously spit on the Constitution and "we the people" have no power to keep them from doing so. trump has defied the Constitution by ignoring the Emoluments Clause for one and the complicit GOP congress does nothing. he may have worked with an enemy nation to interfere with the election and the GOP wants to shut down the investigation. he admiited to the firing of Comey to end the Russia investigation, a blatant display of obstruction of justice, and the complicit GOP does nothing. he appoints people to his administration whose sole purpose is to destroy the agency they oversee. he has denied people seeking asylum counsel and their legal rights to representation in a court of law guaranteed by our Constitution and the complicit GOP does nothing. mcconnell denies debate and discussion on proposed legislation acting like a little tin God and the complicit GOP does nothing. How am I being represented by my two senators and my congressman when proposed legislation isn't even allowed on the floor? We have a country now in the control of a handful of people; trump, pence, ryan and mcconnell. Where is this allowed by the Constitution? Where is our representative democracy?
Was she teaching at Notre Dame while working as a judge? If not, Catholicism aside, how is she going to be a judge on the Supreme Court with only 8 months' bench experience? If somebody's studied film and taught for 10 years, then worked on a set for 8 months, do they have the qualifications to become head of NBC / Universal? No. No business with shareholders and a board of directors would ever allow this, yet somehow this is all right in our government. I'm so tired of all these unqualified people being placed in our government due to money, political opinions, and favoritism, and she does not sound different.
6
When we speak of a religious difference and weighting within the Supreme Court, we, of course, are speaking of the weighting between Roman Catholics and Jews -- with the R.C.s ahead 6-3.
Others are not part of the game -- and really are just bystanders.
Pretty much the same in all politics where I live.
1
The court is in Trump's Court; the democrats have no realistic opposition to his picks,even with 3 republicans on the fence with Roe vs. Wade as the only test. It just isn't going to happen for US this time around. The question still remains what are the democrats going to do to correct the issue and,by chance, will Trump get another pick sooner than 2021?and will the democrats still react the same way then as today and as in Obama's pick? The game is changed. Today the democrats are being gamed; so how are you going to handle it? Do.. let us know, one day please, before the midterms.
"In God We Trust" So if HE wills a woman to become pregnant He must have willed this child into being.
Yet, there is a logical contradiction between the Republican view of immigration, basically to prevent those without skills from becoming non-productive takers of the public weal.
Yet, is not a fetus who is unwanted by its Mother, probably not of the class that can give a child the opportunities that lead to being productive.
Since, Trump insists on a wall to prevent the "retched refuse" from despoiling our county, just why does he want to prevent those more likely to fill this role from entering this country upon birth, with full rights of citizenship.
Of course, he personally has not thought too much about this, except he knows that it something that allows his base to hate the "enemy."
1
For the Democrats to vilify a qualified conservative woman nominee, when many Republicans (as reflected in their Senate confirmation votes) were hardly opposed to the qualified liberal women Sotomayor 68-31 and Kagan 63-37, it would brand the Dems as ironic misogynists. They will be walking headlong into a cultural trap. This could cause more Dems to desert the party this fall. In fact, Amy Barrett may be the ultimate antidote to that long predicted midterm blue wave
3
Sotomayor was nine years older and had been a judge for seventeen years. Barrett has been a judge for eight months. Kagan was three years older. Both Kagan and Sotomayor are moderates. The fact that some Republicans voted for moderates doesn't obligate Democrats to vote for a far right conservative.
5
Denying reality is all too human. Trump is so blatant about lying to create an anti-truth world, the subject is now openly discussed. But not as often mentioned is that most of the planet has believed in irrational ideas since time immemorial. In the 1st century BC, De Rerum Natura, the poem by Lucretius discussed Roman religion from this view, and had an effect that contributed to the Renaissance and the modern world, preferring science and reason.
How did separation of church and state (1st Amendment) end up being denied as a profound fundamental principle of the Founder's ideas? What happened to strict interpretations of the Constitution, so called originalist judges? The original Constitution had big mistakes, but the Founder's Amendment to rectify that. The very first mistake corrected included free speech and free practice of religion, but no mixing of religion with politics.
Islamic warriors conquered a huge part of the world , inspired by religious fervor & greed, and the Spanish Catholics, & Dutch & English Protestants did the same. The Thirty Years War in Germany. The Turks fought Christians for 1000 years. The Founders did not want those things repeated.
The US has always been hyper religious. The idea was to keep it in the private sphere. Millions simply deny that is the truth.
Feinstein mentions that truth to Barret, and is assaulted from all sides.
H.L. Mencken-"Democracy is the rule of the inferior over the superior". Abandon reality, goodbye nation.
3
I would be glad to see someone on the Supreme Court
who did not attend an Ivy League College or Law School.
Roe vs. Wade is not going to be swept away
but it may be refined, perhaps even back to what
the Constitution expects via the 10th Amendment
- by having Abortion left for the States to decide.
2
The very best judges on the court would be, of course, atheists. Having no superstitious axe to grind they would be most likely to be fair and impartial.
7
God forbid atheists rule the Supreme Court. We surely would be doomed.
The catastrophe in the Republican Party that we are presently experiencing is fundamentally a fear of the American people.
Looking down the demographic road as far as the eye can see, the Party sees a rising horde of dark skinned voters, women and young people threatening its economic, moral and social values.
Job #1 for the new Justice will be defending against any and all social advancements by these hordes.
Someone closely akin to President Trump, Judge Roy Moore or Sheriff Joe Arpaio in their adherence to the Constitution and traditional American values will be needed for the job.
9
Truly insightful. The angry white mob will indeed be overuled by lawfully elected people of color.
Then pop the forks
In the meantime know SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism for its rulingsHear that right wing fascist demagogues?
I can't tell if you are sarcastic. But mixing your three role models together, you want someone dishonest with little legal experience, who was thrown off the high court in their native and very conservative state, openly flouted the law and Constitution only to be pardoned, and bragged about committing atrocities including running a self-proclaimed "concentration camp".
American values indeed.
1
In the end, the questions for Ms. Barrett come down to:
Does she believe in separation of state and religions?
Do any of her personal beliefs have unreconcilable differences with existing laws?
If so, how will she handle such issues if they come before her as an SC Justice?
She has almost no experience on the bench, so assessment of her skills in that arena is going to be hard.
I do not want a hard nosed conservative Justice; I want Roe V Wade to stand. But as yet I don't know how she would deal with her religious beliefs vs the law of the land Somewhere else in the Times is a suggestion that she had considered recusal should she be faced with a capital punishment case. Might the same be true of a case regarding legal abortion?
I am perturbed that so many associate being Catholic with being unable to separate church from civil law. I though JFK took care of that.
I looked up People of Praise: religious, yes; nefarious, no - it stresses acting according to one's ( Christian) values. It may appeal to Christians beyond Catholicism. Its webpage also says:
"Freedom of conscience is a key to our diversity. People of Praise members are always free to follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, experience and the teachings of their churches."
I fear Trump in part because he has no ethics; I can't condemn someone else for having them. BUT someone who believes she has the right to apply religious law to secular law is dangerous.
16
Religious values have been the basis for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and much of our law since the founding of the Republic. Sectarianism has been able to banish some of that influence. What has it been replaced by? Different sets of ethical values that accept abortion and lots of other things. Read the First Amendment to understand what it actually means. It is no different for a restriction on abortion because it destroys fetuses than for a restriction on public use of fossil fuels because it destroys mother earth. Everything can be assigned both an ethical and a public value. Whether in the name of god or the name of mother earth? Its just the votes that count.
A very wise and hard-board column.
As a practising Catholic, I'm pretty sure she would indeed place her dogma front and center because frankly, in many parishes, priests preach as if the First Amendment doesn't exist.
That's fine for the priests to do, but extremely dangerous for a member of SCOTUS to use as her yardstick.
Remember that the founding fathers, who had been so burnt not only by forced taxation, but also by forced religion that they bent over backwards to put the proper freedoms "from" and "of" religion as the cornerstone of how they envisioned a "secular" republic to work.
If conservatives are so hell-bent on having originalists on SCOTUS, they should at least be consistent and remember how the founders wanted this country to be governed concerning the role of religion when it comes to interpreting laws covering all Americans.
69
Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court has either 5 or 6 Justices who are Catholics: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic, but may be a practicing Episcopalian, according to Wikipedia. The current membership of the Supreme Court bears no relationship, in terms of religious background, with the demographics of the U. S. and is unfairly tilted toward Catholics, many of them very conservative Catholics at that. Wikipedia declares that this is a matter of "intense public scrutiny." As far as I can tell, there has been relatively no scrutiny or public focus on this issue. Most Americans are completely unaware. We've gone from a situation where it was once difficult for a president to name a Catholic to the Supreme Court to one where it appears to be a decided advantage. How is this "fair and balanced."
10
Wikipedia is expressing an opinion. Catholics constitute a much larger proportion of the population (by multiples) than do Jews. Yet there are no questions being raised about the number of Jews on the Court (Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan). Does this have anything to do with your prejudice against Catholics or is it based on your politics? Let me guess (maybe both)!
3
Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the Catholic justices were selected because they were first conservatives? If non Catholics had been chosen by the Republican presidents, they would still have the same judicial philosophy wouldn’t they? So in the final analysis it is not their religion that matters but how they view the law and how they’re interpret the USC. BTW, the three Jewish justices are more disproportionate to the population of their co-religionists than the Catholics but, again, one assumes they were selected by Democratic presidents because they were liberal, not Jewish.
Amy Coney Barrett, aside from being unqualified based upon her youth and inexperience (in life as well as court proceedings), should be further disqualified based on her own writing.
Aunt Amy, after all, argued in an academic paper that judges who are guided by their faith -- Catholic judges specifically -- cannot judge impartially and must recuse themselves from any case that would conflict with their beliefs or even the doctrine of their religion.
And she co-authored that 1998 paper, "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases," with John Garvey, who was then working on his book, "What Are Freedoms For?" that basically argues the State can decide what our Freedoms are based on an understanding that We the People only have the Right to make "good" choices -- and of course the criteria would be based on a religious test.
I suggest Democrats, or someone with enough voice, come up with a list of suitable judges that would rule more impartially than Trump's extremist choice, and would not further tear down the wall of separation of church and state.
The argument against Coney Barrett and others can be based on the Constitution, even and especially if it involves their stated levels of religious belief.
And that argument would be supported by Barrett's own research, as listed above.
38
46 is too young ? Thats ridiculous.
1
Dmeocrats have no voice in either house of Congress.
"Youth & inexperience"?
Obama was the same age as Barrett in 2008.
Where you complaining then?
3
This is how I believe the game would/will be played:
Barrett will be questioned fiercely about Roe v. Wade in Senate hearings. She would respond with the usual vague answers about respecting precedent and established law, just as Gorsuch did. Both would vote to overturn Roe on the very next day.
Barrett will be confirmed; in the next session the court would jump at the chance to take up any of the recently passed "heartbeat laws," and use this as a basis to overturn Roe.
Trump's go-to defense will be that the abortion issue was decided by a female justice. It will be his ultimate "gotcha," and the end result of the most cynical ploy ever done for political gain.
46
So I assume Trump has realized that he has passed the age when he himself might encounter "problems" which need to be "fixed?"
1
Nobody is even mentioning that the court will take up a 'double jeopardy' law; will that affect the President and all his Henchmen? Is it a way to escape the consequences of their illegal actions?
1
What battle over religion? As far as I’m aware, EVERYONE can still choose what church, temple, synagogue, Islamic Center, religious based amphitheater or storefront they want to attend 24/7/365. It is up to the adherent to avoid civic or social situations that clash with doctrinal beliefs, not the other way around. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to create law that harms or creates second tier citizenship out of non-believers.
18
We are in dangerous territory here. Are we going to oppose a candidate because she is a devout Catholic, or for that matter a devout anything else?She should judged solely on her qualifications. This reminds me of voters’ questioning of JFK’s Catholicism, which he addressed crisply and elegantly. Also, there is more than a whiff of snobbery in mentioning that the judge went to law school at Notre Dame instead of Harvard, Yale, etc. This is ironic since Mr. Bruni has eloquently extolled the virtues of great but supposedly non-elite schools. Earth to Democrats: picking a Supreme Court judge is in large part political. It was for Obama when he picked Sotomayor and Kagan. It is for Trump as well. Pick another fight and focus on electing great new faces to local and national office.
16
There was no "whiff of snobbery" in mentioning that she didn't go to an Ivy League school. If anything there was a shot at the "coastal elites" she has nothing to do with.
If nominated, she needs to be asked if she will recuse herself from any case involving a potential Trump impeachment, such as whether the president can pardon himself. She owes her seat on the bench to Trump, and if nominated and confirmed a SCOTUS seat.
Kavanaugh was complicit in the theft of the 2000 election and must not be confirmed. He is far too partisan.
17
If she doesn’t understand that faith based legislation is unconstitutional she is unqualified.
3
Occasionally Trump gets it right.What are the criteria for Trump’s next appointment to SCOTUS ? This candidate measures up. Conservative values? Yes. Gender? Female. Religious background ? Catholic. Middle American? Indiana. Educational background? Non Ivy League. Overall an astute political choice.
9
Being Catholic was a major problem for John F. Kennedy, as many thought he would defer to the Pope rather than to the Constitution or the American people. Now the hard right wants to load up the Court with extremist Catholics who want to deny the rest of us the right to our Constitutional protections we have fought for all these decades.
Unless it turns out that whoever is seated is not what anyone fully expects him/her to be, and/or Mueller's investigation reveals serious violations that a Democratic Congress does something about, I don't hold out much hope for a return to sanity until the younger generation, including those such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, provide sorely needed leadership and representation for all citizens and not just the wealthy few.
19
You do know that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a Catholic? She is my not means an extremist. Further, most Catholic's are not extremists.
1
Be careful what you wish for ... Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a Catholic who has spoken movingly about her faith and its importance to her connection to the poor and to progressive policies such as Medicare, tuition-free public colleges, prison rehabilitation, and gun control.
1
People are making too many assumptions about the Supreme Court pick.What if Mr.Mueller comes out with his report before September and it calls into question the legitimacy of the Trump election. He would not have the authority to put a judge on the Court who might judge him.The second assumption is that in the 21st century women will have no choice but to carry a pregnancy.Paternity testing can be done and potentially the father of the child will be part of the equation,as he should be.Will both parents be punished- the courts are going to be busy.There is too much hand wringing and not enough sober reflection.
5
There's an easy solution to that problem you forecast.
Just prosecute poor people who can't afford attorneys.
That way you get lots of attention for being tough on the crime you've invented and ruin lots of lives which are hard enough already, without tying up a lot of court time, which of course, should be reserved for non violent drug offenders, whose persecution provides a perfect template for how to go forward anew.
1
It is an assumption that Mueller's finding a question of legitimacy would deny Trump the authority to place a justice on the SC. That is a constitutional question that would have to be settled by the court first. Gets down to which comes first, the chicken or the egg... Trump appears prepared to fry the egg for breakfast and the chicken for dinner. The henhouse has already been raided.
It’s important for people to know that the organization Barrett belongs to, People of Praise, is far outside the mainstream of the Catholic Church. The organization is closer to an Evangelical Christian cult than a regular Catholic organization. Among other things, the group has a practice whereby certain members, acting as supposed guides or mentors, exercise strong influence over the lives of other members, even to the point of intruding into their marital relationships.
So the issue is not so much Barrett’s conservative Catholic beliefs than her membership in an organization where members surrender a certain amount of personal autonomy to others. Not a great quality in a Judge. The problem is that criticism of Barrett is being mis-portrayed as anti-Catholic bias. It’s not her Catholicism that’s the problem. This important nuance will get lost in all the noise.
375
While JFK managed to prove that he could separate his religion from his governance, unfortunately the same cannot be said of the right wingers on the Court, Catholic or not.
5
Oh, you think we should rearrange the Red Deckchairs to First Class, and put the Blue Deckchairs on the lower levels of the Titanic ? THE SHIP IS SINKING !
From Article Six
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
Move on.
1
All we can do is stall. Even when Trump goes to prison, we'll still end up with Pence. Let's hope that the anti-Trump wave is so extreme in a few of years that congress will change the number of justices on the Supreme Court in order to blunt the damage they can do.
Of course if congress did their job in the first place, we wouldn't end up in the Supreme Court all the time.
29
What's wrong with having a conservative president have as his pick a young conservative woman of faith who opposes abortion on principle? Obama appointed two young, doctrinaire leftists in Kagan and Sotomayor who are on the other side. Still, even if Barrett makes it to the Supreme Court, what remains true is that Roe v. Wade has been settled U.S. case law for 45 years, even with various conservative justices on the high court. There is a high bar to meet to overturn that precedent -- and what case out there, arguing to allow states to determine abortion rights, would be strong enough to do that? Even with five conservative justices, I don't see Roe being overturned. If by some chance abortion cases reach the high court on appeal, I suspect the court would simply decline to review them. Enough with the hair pulling.
11
Why does every commenter on the right downplay the danger to Roe? Clearly the GOP base--and the Federalist Society--have been gunning for Roe for forty years. Now they have their chance, but now the right tells us that there's nothing to fear--the Court will suddenly respect stare decisis. Trump isn't nominating a justice who he thinks will respect precedent. I object to the misuse of the term "conservative," which now appears to apply to everyone from Donald Trump to Edmund Burke. The leaders of the current GOP are in no way conservative. There are plenty of more applicable adjectives: authoritarian and corporatist come to mind.
73
The voting records of Sotomayor and Kagan are indistinguishable from retired Republican moderates Souter and Stevens. The charge that they are "doctrinaire leftists" is a blatant lie.
6
Sandra- "Why does every commenter on the right downplay the danger to Roe? "
His name is Scott. NeedI explain any further?
Gentlepersonly. Ministry of Love. Somehow … I prefer the days when we DIDN’T encounter attempts every day to invent language solely for the purpose of flogging ideological convictions and expressing power. Must be a sign in me of (rapidly) advancing age. When younger, I’d respond with a ridiculous and deflationary counter that communicated my contempt for the effort. These days I save deflationary humor mostly for Nancy Pelosi and – what does the president call her? – Pocahontas?
Barrett, huh? Could be, and for the reasons Bret gives. But unlike everything else Trump does, so far (with Gorsuch) he’s chosen to make his SCOTUS picks beyond reasonable question, if not beyond ideological outrage – unlike the mixed discipline with which he’s approached other federal court appointments. With Kavanaugh, he would opt, as he did with Gorsuch, for a deep grounding in constitutional experience. If it’s a Court legacy he seeks, then nominating Barrett would explode that legacy.
But you never know. George H.W. Bush famously regarded the nomination of David Souter as his “biggest mistake” as president. Could be that Barrett astonishes everyone as a SCOTUS justice by torpedoing any attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade -- at least until Trump gets to nominate replacements for Ginsburg and Breyer.
Besides, Barrett is pretty hot, and Trump could nominate her for that reason and no other.
1
Is your disturbing tendency to rate the 'hotness' of women at the center of these opinion pieces part of your dedication to trolling, or an intractable part of your personality, Rumplestiltskin?
(and yes, that last reference is intentional, what with your claims to be able to spin the straw-haired pumpkin's tresses as gold. And we know your name.)
4
Welcome to the United Theocratic State (yes, singular) of America. This has been a goal of Republicans for some time now. Under Trump and a Supreme Court stocked with like-minded appointees, it's hard to see any other path to and through the future. Trump thinks he's on equal footing with God, at the very least, and will next declare that all water he blesses turns to wine...at the very reasonable price of $39.00 for the 750 ml bottle.
34
The presidency as an act of penance? Now there's a theory.
If memory serves me correctly, Judge Scalia was a devout Catholic. So I can't see any relief from the inevitable conclusion of this process.
What I curious about is why there has been almost no media coverage about the relationship Trump had, or still has with Anthony Kennedy's son who just so happens to have been a facilitator of Trumps borrowing money from Deutsche Bank. The ONLY bank that would do business with him.
I only saw coverage of it on Rachel Maddow's show last week and then nothing more. Now here is a perfect opportunity to perpetrate a Fox News style conspiracy and play the kind of games the Right plays and there's silence!
This is why Trump is winning all the time and will continue to win because we're just too nice, too civil and too afraid.
228
JJS- the NYT had an extensive expose on this in late June. Do you honestly think any trump supporters care about these blatant, at the least improprieties, and at the most illegal acts? All they care about is winning, they care nothing about how diabolical trump and his administration are nor the decades long, if not irreparable damage, his "policies" appointments, and disgusting attack against democracy and the very fabric of our country will cause. They WON!!! If the country is destroyed by this victory they couldn't and will not care less.
1
You are tight about Kennedy's son. Why isn't this an enormous scandal that is being covered by every news outlet? Where is the outrage? Why aren't the Democrats making a huge deal about this as they should???
2
I ` agree about the collusion with Kennedy`s son. I think the collusion is so strong I think Kennedy has lost the right to any title. Now trump thinks with this Handmaids appointment he has thrust a double edged sword into the fray. I think it`s time to play his game and parry by highlighting kennedy`s tether to trump and his clans finances. Back door deals have been done involving trump and Kennedy, deals that go back at least two years if not more. Kennedy`s exit was planned a long time ago and payment has been done. A Supreme Court justice has sold out.
1
The Senate Democrats need to hit hard on health care, worker's rights, campaign reform, anti-trust, and environmental issues. Will anyone in the Senate ask a question about enforcing the emoluments clause?
No need to mention Roe because the answers on these other issues will give a clear view of the mindset of any nominee on Roe.
I can't help but wonder if trump's decision will be based on how many golf club memberships each nominee agrees to purchase. For women nominees, of course, the deciding factor will be whether she's wearing ivanka jewelry.
29
Who appoints the "heads" and "handmaids" of the People of Praise? Why not appoint them as judges and eliminate the middle man?
15
Our nation, its working citizens and their struggling families sustained enough damage from the likes of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Willis Van Devanter, James C. McReynolds, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler -- not to mention some of their predecessors who were responsible for: Lochner v. N.Y. (1904), Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1918), Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. (1935).
Any attempts in any manner to undermine or destroy the federal and state governments' powers to protect American workers from destructive exploitation by the dark forces of known, somewhat unnamed anti-Middle Class revanchist and mucilaginous billionaires, CEOs and Corporate cabalistic predators should be met with unremitting counter-attacks on all fronts. The worst thing that these forces of evil fear most is a well-educated Middle Class. We must deny them a "dumbed down" citizenry.
If anyone asks by what name we operate, we should respond that we are the heirs of the Enlightenment, the forces of the Age of Reason, and the enemy of despots, dictators, and totalitarians. We believe in American Constitutional governance with separations and divisions of power; a federal system which shares governance with the states; with enumerated as well as implied powers granted; tempered by a robust Bill of Rights. We operate within a democratic republic. Our Constitution is a living, breathing, growing document -- as are the people who live by its precepts.
2
It is only logical that the most selfish, dishonest, lying, cheating, non-religious President in history would attempt to pack the Supreme Court with yet another reactionary conservative Catholic. His dislike for Trump notwithstanding, Ross Douthat must be drooling.
41
I am absolutely no fan of Trump, but our arguably most famous president — Abraham Lincoln — was notably non-religious, at least in a formal sense. Though well-acquainted with the Bible, Lincoln was averse to becoming involved with organized religion. He never joined a denomination or participated in religious services as the member of a particular church, but he respected the religious beliefs of others. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that despite his reluctance to participate in organized religion, Lincoln had more understanding and respect for religion and religious people than Trump has in either of his little fingers.
4
The Supreme Court is lost for the next 30 to 40 years. The country is probably lost with it, but there still might be ways to fight back.
Ridiculing the Corporate Court (not "conservative," but "corporate") at every opportunity is a good start.
145
Concentrate on the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, planning to take all three away from Republicans by 2020. Then the Supreme Court can be enlarged beyond the current 9 justices and in that manner overcome the rigged GOP hold on the court today.
3
It's hard to ridicule an entity that is doing harm to you or those around you.
How about the Polish model? Ha ha, sorry, just joking. Only extremists, which in this country as in Poland means the far right party in power, do things like that.
I'm wondering what happens if Mueller's report proves actual collusion between Trump's campaign and Putin's agents? If Dems get control of the House, impeachment will probably follow, but what about Trump's policies and appointments? There's nothing in the Constitution to deal with the implications here, but considering how clearly Trump is fulfilling every single item on Putin's to-do list, what are we to do about it? Is the future of this republic in danger of collapse?
77
It's why the election should have been nullified.
Since this pathetic playpen cannot do the right thing on a timely basis ever, the hole just gets deeper every day.
34
Someone like Barrett would be hard to swallow -- really hard. But hey, Trump has the right to appoint a dogcatcher if he wants to. BUT (you knew that was coming) the Senate should consider no nominations until Mueller either indicts or exonerates Trump. No president should be able to fill a SCOTUS vacancy if he/she is under a cloud that might cause SCOTUS to have to rule on a matter related to that cloud.
3
Steve - Yes, but there's nothing in the law about how to nullify an election, either. This dark time is truly a stress test for our system of laws, and most concerning is the number of Americans, elected or just powerful and rich, who would pervert the rule of law for their own ends.
1
She should be questioned about how her faith guides her life. Separation of church and state is something she can relate to I am certain.
She should also be questioned about what happens if the person who nominates here happens to be found to have colluded with a foreign power to win an election.
How will that affect her faith and her ability to be objective?
Finally, when the Democratic power assumes control of the 3 branches, it will happen soon, then we need to add 2 more justices to the Supreme Court. Call it the McConnell correction to restore our democratic norms.
46
Separation of church and state is too nebulous to describe how exactly it is supposed to work. This separation is achieved by denying Congress any power to respect any article faith in legislation.
1
Two more would be exactly the right number. Like the House, whose size was frozen a century ago, many of our most seemingly intractable problems seem to revolve around too few people making the big decisions.
Both Thomas Jefferson and John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the authors of the Federalist Papers were against Catholics in political positions. Their apparent reasoning was intrusion of Catholic teachings into the political scene. How can a fervent Catholic such as Barrett be trusted with the First Amendment requiring a separation of church and state? Would she recuse herself (as she should given her religiosity) from any case involving religious issues? No prior Justice seems to have done so though arguments can certainly be made they should have done so.
17
They were against what?
Read what John F. Kennedy said about his Catholicism when he ran for president in the Protestant-dominated U.S. in 1960.
There are religious people, and then there are RELIGIOUS people. Some can be trusted to be objective and dispassionate and others not.
2
Madeleine Albright says there is a "special place in hell for women who don't help each other." Does this rule have an exception for Catholic women?
31
Women are not obligated to help women who want to impose their paternalistic religious beliefs on the general population. Not sure at this point if Barrett intends to impose from the bench or not.
4
No but just like everyone else nowadays it’s really just meant to have other people vindicate her viewpoint.
The richness of it: a woman putting the anti-woman, anti-child legacy of Roe v. Wade to bed.
13
And John, if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
6
I would not trust your assessment of something being anti-woman given you seeing "richness" in the prospect of Roe v. Wade being negated by Amy Coney Barrett just because she is female.
2
At our peril we forget how these conservatives will eviscerate the environmental protections so long fought for and put into law, especially Brett K, he will be an ecologic disaster and Barrett not far behind. What does everyone think? ...we have two Earths and we'll just slide in the new one in after we completely trash this one?
78
I suppose it will get us to Heaven all the faster if we destroy the planet.
The Earth will survive. Humanity, not so much.
When Trump burbled on about the four potential nominees he interviewed yesterday and pointedly mentioned their "academic" credentials, I concluded that Barrett would be his choice. The essential question is whether she can separate her personal religious beliefs, which certainly condemns abortion as a sin, from her secular role on the court? I'm afraid, because Roe v. Wade relies on a woman's right to privacy, a somewhat subjective right, that any justice (as did four in the minority in Roe v Wade decided) might not endorse, Barrett or whoever Trump names can wipe out Roe v. Wade. And if that is too frontal an assault on the right to choose, then the new GOP majority can erode what remains of Roe v Wade from within.
19
It will all depend on what her minder, the so called "handmaid" in her People of Praise Catholic group tells her to do.
She doesn't belong to a religion, she belongs to a cult. Even most Catholics like me would think so.
128
What is her position on gay rights, Mr. Bruni? In addition to controlling her anti-abortion fixation as expressed in the academy, does a rigid Catholicism also dictate a desire to shut down equality for the LGBTQ community? Be careful what you wish for Trumpists. How many Americans wish to be ruled from Rome?
26
"How many Americans wish to be ruled from Rome?"
That's what anti-Catholics said 58 years ago when JFK ran for president. Seems like not much has changed.
Ruled from Rome? That's an unquaint echo from America's ugly past. It was too conservative for me, but I did not feel the hand of Rome, just the hand of the American right. And don't forget that in Scalia's final years on the Court, the split was 6-3, Catholics to Jews. Look ma, no Protestants.
1
Apparently most Trumpists aren't worried about being ruled by Rome. After all, we are moving closer to the center of Putin's web, yet most supporters seem oblivious to Donald's admiration of and envious of powerful dictators. Sometime in the future, we could become basically a territory of Russia with a governor selected by Russia's or China's supreme ruler. Think of your grandchildren when you vote!
All those children and she had time for a career?
23
ugh. I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but this is the kind of comment that should be deleted from conservatives and liberals alike.
2
Two of her children are orphans from Haiti and another is a special needs child.
2
Maybe, heavens to Betsy, the dad helps out.
The Handmaid’s Tale (via “People of Praise”) may become frighteningly real if this religious fanatic finds her way onto the Supreme Court.
86
Just like Catholic John F. Kennedy being elected President. If he had lived long enough he would have moved the Papacy from Rome to Washington, DC and we would all be wearing little crosses around our necks. Right. Got to watch out for those religious fanatics.
1
I've heard it said many times that the only bigotry still allowed in the United States is anti-Catholic bigotry.
If Trump picks Ms. Barrett, I guess we're going to find just how true that statement is, aren't we?
9
I'm Catholic. I have a brother who is a priest.
Catholic positions may not be popular in secular society, but that is a far far far cry from the discrimination I have seen and heard casually exercised against Jews, Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, women....
So no. Not by a long shot is Catholic bigotry a big problem in the US, and it's definitely not the only form stilled "allowed."
11
No. We can still openly hate Nazis and pedophiles. Just because he isn't the pope anymore doesn't mean that he's forgotten.
3
Yes. And thank you for saying this. None of my catholic sons have been shot playing in a park, or reaching for his wallet. No one has ever called the cops on them for mowing a lawn or fundraising for school for a school team trip. Anti-catholic bigotry is quaint compared to others.
11
Frank the same way you do to want to be discriminated against because you are gay, you should t disparage this woman because she is a Catholic who goes to church. She seems fabulous, 7 kids and such a career? She is also very pretty and poised, very intelligent with a big heart and a great character.
7
Alexgri, I would prioritize experience as a judge over pretty and poised, and the experience level here is awfully limited to gain a life-time position. She has not proved herself as an attorney or a judge at this juncture. For anyone who is truly concerned about the future of the Supreme Court, religion, prettiness, and poise should not be front and center. Yes to character, intelligence and heart, but also solid experience (not age, experience)
76
"very pretty"??? Is this a qualification?
37
Haven't done the history but a fair number of Justices never had clients. Elena Kagan was White House counsel and Solicitor General, two client-less posts in truth.
Whoever Trump nominates will be confirmed. The Democrats have no power here.
The battle is on November 6th, 2018.
40
The only difference we can see is that she is a woman, a Republican woman. that does not bring her closer to the average working women. She did not have to struggle to find and pay for reliable childcare or medical care, she has her domestic help and can concentrate on her job. They can just throw all the numbers in a hat and draw a number.
15
I'm not crazy about her as a Justice, but how do you know she has domestic help? She was a law professor before she became a judge which doesn't pay all that well. She has 7 children, 1 of whom is special needs and 2 adopted. You might want to check your stereotypes.
2
Are you aware that two of her 7 children are orphans from Haiti and another is a special needs child?
3
10 years as a law professor and a year or two as a clerk is simply insufficient legal and life experience to sit on the Supreme Court. She's never had a client!
The fact that Trump would consider someone this inexperienced tells you they care more about non-legal qualifications. That alone is reason to be highly suspicious of this nomination and to reject her.
880
You ever heard of Elena Kagan? Did you have the same concerns then?
1
Wrong - she practiced law for three years with a D.C. law firm.
What? Obama's nominee Elena Kagan had NO experience on the judicial bench, only experience as a clerk, law professor and Obama's Solicitor General -- for about one year, from 2009-2010, when she was confirmed. Kagan was the first since William Rehnquist in 1972 not to have any judicial experience and make it to the high court.
3
Donald Trump is strutting around the schoolyard with a new toy: a Supreme Court nomination. He’s taunting us all in a childish sing-song voice: “I have something that you don’t.”
We should all want a Supreme Court free from the urgent undertow of ideology but that ideal will elude us as long as Trump is making the call. As a Catholic, I do not trust the anti-abortionist Right wing. For as long as I can remember, the Church told us that any and all forms of sex without the express purpose of pro-creation was sinful. This, we discovered, while “celibate” priests indulged their repressed libidos upon little boys (or girls). The resultant guilt trips splintered personalities and psyches.
It would seem that Trump lives to saw on a nerve—not just touch it—and this prospective nomination is designed to galvanize people’s emotions to the breaking point. A deeper look into this provocative choice—if it is indeed Amy Coney—might reveal the hand of Stephen Bannon rather than Trump. And how certain could they be that a Republican woman on the Supreme Court would guarantee a deciding vote in Roe vs. Wade?
But make no mistake: this 45-years old case is under the guillotine. Trump is less interested in law than he is in poking a sharp stick into the eyes of any and every woman caught up in life’s vicissitudes.
We should all remember that this is a game for him—with other people’s lives.
498
I attended a Catholic high school where, as part of "right to life" instruction, we did hear admonition about, yes, abortion (though not contraception), the death penalty, war, hunger and more. I am a bit surprised now to find some Catholic figures seemingly neutral on or even if favor of capital punishment. Even Pope Francis said that abortion is not different from other 'right to life' issues. But that one just attracts more detractors than others.
3
Soxared, donald has probably paid for any number of abortions for lady friends, ex-wives, even daughters. Now is the time for some deep digging to find the one who will come forth. Might not stop this horrible nomination, but would sure hit him where he deserves to be exposed.
4
@soxared
“This, we discovered, while ‘celibate' priests indulged their repressed libidos upon little boys (or girls).
Even your hometown paper the Boston Globe with its “Spotlight” on the Catholic priesthood agrees with Catholic organizations that ~50% of Catholic priests have sex w adults, usually women and have children with them.
It’s this whole “celibate” thing that drives adult relationships underground. Instead of just looking at pedophilia which involves very few priests (OK I understand that just ONE pederast is one too many!) the church could cast off its incredible hypocrisy by allowing men (and maybe women in the future?) to have fully normal married lives.
http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2012/05/are-catholic-priests-leading-secr...
From another lapsed Catholic, now agnostic.
3
Barrett will certainly not be nominated. Ronald Reagan was screwed when he promised to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court and ended appointing Sandra Day O'Connor, a "pro-life" Arizona conservative who went on to uphold the core of Roe v. Wade and disappointed on many other issues (much like Kennedy). Given the near-anarchy in parts of D.C., it would be extremely unlikely that a female justice would go against her "sisters" on the left and provide the necessary vote to send Roe back to the states. Trump would thus be wise to take some of the emotion out of the issue by nominating another supremely qualified man. I hope he chooses Brett Kavanaugh.
2
There have been plenty of women Republicans willing to screw over other women.
23
In anticipation of Judge Barrett's nomination,no comment. In anticipation of the questions which will be asked at the hearing, no comment. In anticipation of what placing her on the bench may do, no comment. My silence barely contains my rage.
25
Seems like her limited experience on the bench should be the focus.
350
Fair enough, but one of Republicans' first replies would be that Elena Kagan had NO judicial experience when she was nominated and confirmed.
That's Amy PHONEY Barrett. I can just see the confirmation hearings now
" I will follow the constitution ". " I will respect precedence ". Blah, Blah, Blah. This person is a nuclear weapon, aiming directly for Roe v. Wade.
And this " People of Praise " sounds exactly like Jim Jones, just before the Kool Aid. You are absolutely correct, Frank. Trump WILL choose Her. It's a huuuuuge salute to his opposition, with ONE digit. Seriously. Contain this creature, the only way possible. VOTE in the Midterms, vote OUT his Collaborators. Each and every single one.
251
I suspect Phyllis is right.
Note: "Precedents", not "precedence" (a very different thing, as I'm sure you know). It's like my favorite, the difference between "patients" and "patience".
1
" I will follow the constitution ". " I will respect precedence"
Both of which will be sufficient cover for Senator Susan Phoney Collins to vote for her. And then pretend to be "shocked" when she rules to overturn Roe v Wade.
6
Prospective SCOTUS candidates always spout meaningless platitudes during confirmation hearings. In this case it will give senators such as Susan Collins cover for initially "courageously" claiming the desire to overturn Roe v. Wade is a bridge too far, yet voting for confirmation in the end.
3
"They took issue in particular with questions that Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, asked Barrett about whether she could properly separate her fidelity to Catholic tenets from her duty to interpret the law for all Americans."
Hmm...sounds pretty familiar. Wasn't that basically the same religious test argument made against Democratic President Kennedy?
12
Read your history, HurryHarry. President Kennedy spoke at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960. He made the argument, "I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic." He also made a very compelling case for the separation of church and state:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.."
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source..."
He concluded with these stirring words: "If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people."
Trump cares nothing for the separation of church and state, or even the rule of law for that matter. He is weaponizing Ms. Barrett" Catholicism.
7
I remember Jack Kennedy, and this woman is no Jack Kennedy...
6
"Barrett, you see, talks readily and proudly about her Catholicism, making no bones about its presence at the center of her life. She and her husband have seven children, one of whom is adopted. She belongs to a mostly Catholic group, People of Praise, whose members make an especially intense commitment to their faith."
Being raised a Catholic myself, I find Ms. Coney Barrett's beliefs refreshing because her personal life reflects her faith. That being said, I sincerely hope that if she is confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice, she will be keep her faith separate from the task at hand - upholding enforcing, and interpreting the law.
11
Great, the nation needs a loon who views contraception as a mortal sin.
243
And abortion as infanticide.
5
The nation? More like the planet. Overpopulation, much?
4
Who also happens to be stunningly underqualified in terms of judicial experience.
2
She'd be a fine nominee. Hopefully, we will return to the time before the Bork fiasco when the Senate gave the benefit of the choice to the President, and simply assessed baseline qualification, a time when Thurgood Marshall was confirmed by a 69-11 roll call vote, and when Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0. In the short term, it means that the court may sway left or right. In the long term, it all balances out to the benefit of the country.
4
I’m wondering (seriously): Did you leave similar comments about “the Senate giving the benefit of the choice to the President” on articles about Merrick Garland’s nomination?
69
Sorry, Observer. Mitch McConnell threw any hope of that out the window in 2016.
9
I've been arguing this for a long time, and was very unhappy when Sen. Harry Reid decided to go for the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominations. Bad precedent.
Dianne Feinstein may have been artless in defining Judge Barrett but the truth is the light. No mother of seven children would abide the thought of abortion. Roe vs. Wade may be a thing of the past. If the judge remains true to her conservative and religious convictions she'll vote to deprive women of their right of choice. Also, a Supreme Court donnybrook will take the country's focus away from the Mueller investigation.
Upsetting the apple cart is what this president does best. Taunting and defiant, this choice to replace Justice Kennedy will keep the spotlight on him. He'll tear down America because he's in a position to do it, and Congress won't stop him.
157
My mother a devout Roman Catholic had 10 children. She absolutely understands the right of women to choose.
But yes Roe v Wade is over. I said that on 11/9/16.
That’s the war on women they’ve been waging for decades.
48
Roe v Wade may be over, as you write. but abortion will never ever be over.
silver, "No mother of seven children would abide the thought of abortion."
I am a mother of 5 children and was raised Catholic. We didn't have 5 children out of religious constraints but rather birth control failure. I am staunchly prochoice, pro- birth control and always have been. My 89 year old mother who is still a practicing Catholic is pro-choice. She and my father also used birth control even though it was against the tenets of the Catholic faith. Birth control can fail, pregnancies can go horribly wrong resulting in severely birth defected babies who will spend their lives in pain and misery. Some women know they are not parent material and shouldn't be forced to give birth to a child, forced to be a parent. I have two daughters who don't want children. One is 40, the other 36. They know better than anyone, even Mom, whether they want to be parents or not. Even Mom doesn't get to decide. I believe that no-one, not God, not the Church and certainly not the government has the right to dictate how many children a woman or couple should have or not have. It is her (or their) choice. And her (or their) choice only.
31
Wait a minute. Sen. Feinstein receives censure for an insensitive remark and "the response to the way she expressed it illustrated the perils of seeming to equate people with and measure them by, their creeds." I believe that only applies to certain religions in this country, Mr Bruni. I mean, I don't believe the United States has a Catholic Ban in place anywhere in the world.
9
All have forgotten J.F.K. and the questioning of his religion. A public discussion of this would be helpful in testing changes in the present culture
9
Frank
Was this your attempt at a preemptive strike intended to torpedo her nomination? Or, perhaps, the alternative? Nevertheless, Judge Barrett would be a brilliant choice for the Court and the President would be wise to nominate her for many, if not all, of the reasons you discuss. I hope she is the President's choice. It will be fascinating to see how Democrats approach the nomination of a highly competent conservative female jurist. How they manage a nomination such as hers will live in all our memories for a very long time.
8
Kind of the way we still remember how they 'handled' the many-times more competent Merrick Garland's nomination? Although I don't think fascination was the applicable word in that case.
11
If a man had these credentials he would not be considered. Thin to non-existant judicial experience, 10 years academic experience at a mid-level law school. Hope she has a stay-at-home husband or has paid her nanny taxes (remember Kimba Wood!). Justice Scalia had more children but he also had one parent who did not work outside the home.
6
I agree that the real questions of her has to be on precedent and how she views overturning that. If the Democrats have half a brain they should be questioning her on any decisions she made (or lack thereof, given she was a judge only a short time), her legal writings (law professors have to publish), and how she views issues like stare decis in making decisions.
I think her religious beliefs should play a role in thinking about her, for example, she has written how her beliefs make it that she believes that a woman is supposed to be subservient to men (she was talking about her marriage), how would this play out in issues surrounding equal pay for women, or issues with sexual harrassment? How would her views as a Catholic look at issues surrounding birth control and contraception, in a country where the church once made it illegal to prescribe or have contraception in many places? They could ask her how she views issues around religious liberty versus civil rights, since that has no direct bearing on her faith (it could be a question asked of someone not of faith, or of any faith).
I agree that Trump is probably looking at her because of the politics, if women oppose her he can point out she is a woman, if people oppose her because of her faith he can point that out to his base (and also of course as a die hard Catholic, she would rule against abortion)..too, her coming from Notre Dame, that school from South Bend, Indiana, Trump nation for sure, doesn't hurt.
8
I don't think it matters how Democrats approach vetting her...Trump will spin any possible objection to her as anti-woman and anti-religious. Democrats might as well be bold and confront the influence of her religious beliefs directly. Democrats have a bad habit of letting Republicans define the argument and then reacting by immediately going on the defensive (i.e "That's not what we meant").
16
Yes, Dems should hammer whomever is nominated on stare decisis, starting with the overturning of the settled 41-year-old precedent of Abood for no reason other than antipathy for public employee unions. In addition, look at the nominee's record on corporatism: does this nominee always rule in favor of corporations and against workers and consumers? That should really be the focus.
4
Perfectly ok to be anti-religious. Even for a Senator. As long as you do not single out a particular version of this superstition for your animus.
There was a time when presidents picked Supreme Court justices from somewhere inside the 40 to 60 yard lines -- somewhere in the middle of the conservative and liberal end zones . Some presidents were a bit more conservative, others a bit more liberal. But they were mostly in the middle.
Trump and some of the immediate past Republican presidents seem determined to pick justices who aren't even on the field. Clarence Thomas is so far outside the mainstream of legal thinking that he isn't even in the end zone -- he is in the parking lot outside the stadium. Apparently Gorsuch is right out there with him -- they can tailgate while the rest of American jurisprudence stays within the bounds of legal sanity.
If that is the way that the Republicans want it, the Democrats can do little now. But the Court will become an obvious impediment to the American concept of democracy and government and will become, as Trump is, the enemy many, many US citizens.
280
Any "sincerely held belief" out of thin air counts more than reason now.
11
Obviously not knowledgeable about football. There is no such thing as the 60-yard line.
Jasper
3
60 yard line? I know Notre Dame plays a role in this unfortunate saga, but I suggest steering clear of football metaphors if you don't really understand football.
2
I think it is quite likely that Trump will nominate Barrett: More red meat for his delusional "base", and one more step toward the conservative dream of a Christian theocracy in America.
All the while, the antithesis of supposed Christian ideals rakes in the money, operates above the law and shakes his head in disbelief at the gullibility of the people who installed him in the position he now holds. I think irony might actually, in fact, be dead.
90
Young, went to a lousy college. I wonder if she understands the amount of vitriol her appointment and subsequent decisions would trigger toward her. She would be widely detested.
66
Martyrs love being detested. She's a " victim " FOR her faith.
Boo-Hoo.
11
She will take it all as a God-gifted test that will get her through the Pearly Gates faster, when she transitions to what they all call "a better place", if she adheres to "God's will".
8
I guess that means no eating out at Red Hen?
1
As the third world slowly emerges from tribalism, the USA descends further into tribal conflict and self-immolation. The rivalries surpass the intensity of the emotional conflict between football team fans. Our leadership and spokespersons need cognitive behavioral therapy.
44
The US contends to lead the world in mental illness.
6
They need to be fired by way of the voting machine. Vote!
2
Since when has the third world been emerging from tribalism? Looked at Mali, Niger, or Myanmar recently?
What kind of off the wall interpretation of the meaning of "establishment of religion" will this woman give if cornered into any answer at all?
It's a plain fact that Congress is denied the power to enact faith-based legislation. It isn't Congress that needs to check the court, it is the brain dead court that will not enforce the plainest law in the USA on the random fools Americans choose to represent themselves in Congress that has cultured this insanity.
11
Hopefully, the correct interpretation. At the time, at least nine States had an "Established" religion, the issue was that they didn't have the same religion and each was afraid that another's religion might be chosen, so they included the Establishment clause. It doesn't separate the government from religion, it is there simply to ensure that no one religion is chosen above the others.
1
Great Trump can have his choice considered after Judge Garland is seated, his investigations are over and after the elections so the people can make a fair choice. Any Democrat voting yes before then should be primaried.
19
The very last thing the Supreme Court needs is a judge steeped in a religion.
245
This court needs an atheist to teach it what an "establishment of religion" is. It bothers itself to death over silly "sincerely held beliefs". These things are made up nonsense that have no substantiation, so the founders denied Congress any power whatsoever to respect them in legislation.
16
yes, deep moral convictions are always an impediment for a judge -- not
1
If the judge being considered here were a Muslim, steeped in the Quran? What then would you say?
3
So Frank, since this discussion is cast in terms of religion and regionalism - and completely ignoring that only someone the Federalist Society/Heritage Foundation screening committee has approved will get the nod - we say the Rolling Trumpster Fire will go with even more of a longshot.
Someone should tell Agent Orange from KAOS that Elle Woods is only a movie character - and why are there no supermodel judges in the U.S. ?
Anyway we say he'll look around and might notice that of the current 9 Justices, all who have declared a religious preference are either Jewish or Catholic, and the Sociopath-in-Chief might possibly discover judicial candidates who could be Protestant (!) or even have gone to Law School elsewhere than Harvard or Yale.
Yes, we know it's a ridiculous notion, and that not-POTUS 45 has already been noted as preferring a candidate from Harvard or Yale, but looking where his base is - and how he likes to play to that base - we wonder if he might indeed go with your Notre Dame grad, or perhaps even someone from Michgan Law ?
Probaby Ivanka and Jared (or Arabella ?) will get the final input, so who knows - wonder which possible candidates have been staying at the Trumpkin family properties, or have a membership at one of their resorts ?
11
Judge Roy Moore?
(yes, I said it....not proud....but I did)
4
How about Joe Arpaio? He seems to be familiar with the inner workings of our legal system.
Being past the half-century mark in age, for the first time in my life I realize that a Justice could be appointed who could have a profound effect on the rest of my life, possibly removing forever the hope that the United States might have actually gone from conservative bastion to one that had developed a deep sense of justice and freedom and tolerance for each of us, equally, where the freedoms that were suppose to have been the pillars of our foundation had finally come to fruition. Instead, it is more than likely that we will all need to continue to combat the forces in this country that seek to limit the rights which have not yet taken firm root and might even be dug up, supplanted by intolerance and restrictions that seem to be a permanent part of the fabric of this country.
104
Being just past the half-century mark in age myself, since Trump's election I've had a similar reaction to fully having to realize the gap between what I thought our nation was becoming to what it seems it is and where it seems to be stuck (and figuring out the whys and hows of all that is that).
And all the expected reactions to what seems to be our rapid devolution in the period of Trump
Like you, realizing that simply means there remains work to be done.
2
Perhaps she will be convinced to be a bit more moderate by having the other 3 woman on the court as colleagues.
Trump voters will get what they voted for otherwise : the lack of freedom to decide whether to continue a pregnancy, then the complete lack of respect or any assistance for the child once she/he is born, and a savaged environment to raise the child in.
146
She is extremely unlikely to accept the position of the 3 women currently on the court. I suspect she would accept them as anti-colleagues.
3
Look at what Phyllis Schlafly did first to kill the Equal Rights Amendment and then to crusade against Roe and other womens' rights for the rest of her political career. Don't lump all women into one basket. The other women on the Supreme Court are individuals, just like the men.
7
Judge Garland would be such an outstanding and centrist candidate. If only he would be given a fair look...
419
Sadly, that boat sailed and sunk.
3
Judge Garland was only a "centrist" in that he would have voted the same as Sotamayor but he would have concurred with a less radical opinion.
Yea - if only. A snowball has a better chance in Hell, unfortunately.
1
Go for it. In spite of what liberals want there is no religious test in the constitution .
Since activist liberal judges politicized the courts 50 years ago they have cheered on usurpation of legislative and executive powers.
So now live with it!
15
"Activist" judges were those who tried to undermine the New Deal
6
loyalty will be Donald's only consideration.
26
Loyalty....and looks.
8
She had better keep both eyes on the Liar’s tiny hands...
6
There are any number of reasons to be leery of Judge Barrett, particularly her professional credentials and her disregard for legal precedent, but her faith in and of itself should not be a disqualification.
Actually, there have been a number of Catholic leaders, like Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, and the Kennedys who did distinguish religious doctrine from the law of the land.
And even Trump himself, for his far right agenda, hasn't indicated being driven by any religiosity.
Let's look at candidates for who they are in their judicial capacity and not for what they personally believe. It's when someone won't separate Church from State that we put our feet down.
47
Both Justices Sotomayor and Thomas are Catholic, so clearly this is not about religion. What it is about is freedom and free thinking, and I don't think that Judge Coney Barrett will be doing much of that.
133
If only ...
1
The fact she remains an ardent Catholic despite their long history of protecting pedophiles certainly makes me question her judgement.
12
The Dems will never have a cogent strategy on the nomination. Don't think for a minute that Trump won't allege anti-Catholic bias and hammer the Dems over it repeatedly. The Dems lost this war when they tried to filibuster Gorsuch and McConnell did away with it. Gorsuch replaced Scalua, so no change in the makeup of the Court. Had the Dems thought strategically, the filibuster would have been preserved for this fight. Trump's nominee will be confirmed
18
@Ntcpol, You, conveniently, left out the part where the Republicans started this war by not doing their constitutional duty to advise and consent in regards to Merrick Garland. The Dems will probably loose this battle but we didn't start, or want, this war.
8
The last time Democrats had a chance to stop Ms. Barrett's nomination was on November 8th, 2016. Perhaps something those who stayed home or decided to cast a protest vote should have given more weight to.
Too late now. I suppose Barrett could loudly declare that she will absolutely overturn Roe v. Wade and senators Collins and Murkowsk decide give Democrats a chance. Seems unlikely.
So fight the good fight. Ask hard questions. But recognize that this battle is all but lost. The winnable battle is on November 6th, 2018.
Any question, asked by a Democrat, that starts with "As a Catholic ..." is an undeseved gift to a racist President who thought a judge of Mexican decent couldn't possibly render a fair verdict.
561
Don't forget McCain as an additional spoiler. Let that big thumb descend once again!
4
You are so right. Not just in 2016, but also in the 2014 mid-terms, those moderates and liberals who abdicated their prime responsibility as citizens to cast an informed vote are the ones who shoulder most of the blame for the situation the country is in now.
Unfortunately, we all shall reap what they have sown.
4
Exactly. All the folks who 'couldn't bring themselves' to vote for Hillary helped bring this on.
5
You haven’t mentioned a single one of your objections to her.
13
What about religious fanatic for staters?
7
She does not believe in contraception.
6
Um, the likelihood of her participating in the demise of Roe v. Wade seemed to be a painfully clear objection.
2
Any reasonable president, even allowing for partisanship and ideology, would want to put forth a nominee who could be acceptable to a large swath of people and who would be part of a respectable legacy down the road. But leave it to Donald to turn even our highest court into his own boxing ring...
256
Puhlease - be real. He could nominate an RBG clone and she wouldn't be found 'acceptable' to the perpetually outraged faction.
1
NM has just condemned most of the recent Republican Presidents for their extremist appointments to the Court.
@NM
“boxing ring?”
No, our Donnie is more into fake pro wrestling with Vince McMahon than with the sweet science.
He even nominated Vince’s wife and she is now both working with the WWE and is Secretary of Small Business Administration.
Eleven years ago Donnie got in the ring with Stone Cold Austin and McMahon and Trump ended up shaving McMahon’s head at Wrestlemania. (Both Trump and McMahon had a running contest on who had real hair.)
So classy Donnie!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6e1MJnarIE
4
Everything--everything aside from explicit economic policy--that Trump does is purely about politics. Immigration, affirmative action, religion, identity: it's all to bait the Democrats, to get the "gotcha" quotes that he & Fox will use to tell their lies & wage their fear-mongering about the Democrats. And of course to divert attention from his scandals & self-enriching economic policies.
313
Why do you say "aside from explicit economic policy?" His tax cuts, trade wars, etc., are explicit economic policy and totally driven by politics. His major concern on economic policy is how it benefits him and the business relationships of himself and his family.
11
James: the trade wars are political. But tax cuts? They're about lining his own pockets. The political spin comes after the check is cashed.
1
invert your comment, replace bate the Democrats by "Republicans" and Fox by "CNN", and you have Pres. Obama's actual practice, no?
3
Regarding People of Praise, last year the NYT wrote "Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women."
With Roe v. Wade at stake, the mere presence of the word "handmaid" in this paragraph scares me to death.
1297
Who would be seated on the court? Barrett, or an unknown person in the background?
2
And in this scenario, Coney Barrett sees herself more as an "Aunt' than a "handmaid," especially now that she is no longer "fruitful."
Sounds like a cult to me. Scary!
1
We already have 4 or 5 Catholic Justices. I suspect Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Franklin Graham, etc will be lobbying hard for an evangelical in this round. If republicans are indeed looking for maximum "liberal freak out", an evangelical nominee would only second only to one of the Fox News "Judges", with a Catholic being a distant third on the freak-out scale.
125
Anyone Mike Pence would want would be awful for women, LGBT and minorities.
For sure! As a Democrat, and a Christian, Judge Barrett does not "freak" me out for being a Catholic. But I would definitely be in freak mode if she was a Bible blazing tea party affiliate.
When Scalia was alive and originating law, there were six Catholic SCOTUS Justices; too many by ANY measure in a religiously diverse and predominantly protestant country.
I think we've finally arrived at a long-standing but little commented upon truth: "conservative" jurisprudence does not mean "strict constructionist" or "original intent." It means "conservative" as in politically conservative (or, more lately, reactionary or radical).
Conservatives have claimed for decades that they are just after the truth (as revealed to them) in the Constitution. Liberals, meanwhile, are simply outcome driven and don't care about the text. All of which is nonsense and always has been.
When Trump says he will appoint "conservatives" all he means is that they'll vote for particular outcomes, usually inimical to the interests of the poor and the marginalized and favorable to the wealthy and the white.
738
On the other side, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and her two female co-horts, along with Sontamoyer Kagan, and Breyer, always vote the straight Democratic Party line. One has to wonder whether they first call the DNC headquarters to find out which way they should decide a case.
3
Roberts went through contortions to uphold ObamaCare. That doesn’t fit your thesis. It is, however, a textbook example of the conservative value of judicial restraint.
2
Roe v Wade was based on a non-existent "right to privacy" which appears no where in the Constitution.
2
One of the reasons the Supreme Court has attained the position and respect it has is because it is ( was?) seen by the majority of Americans as the " Honest Broker" where a question was debated according to law, precedent and intent. rather than along party lines.
Destroy that, and the Court will have lost its unique position to be the final arbiter for a Congress the refuses to govern.
People will realize that the court is no longer an impartial and trustworthy arbiter but peopled by party political adherents.
Add to this the the chaos of revisiting "Stare Decisis", and unpicking these because you don't happen to like them and the Supreme Court will become a joke.
Who will benefit if the Supreme Court is only capable of reaching a position that mirrors the beliefs of its majority members?
Who will benefit if we all know what the outcome will be before a case has even been heard?
Who will benefit if the Supreme Court simply becomes a rubber stamp?
That is what Justice Kagen was warning about last week. The court is on a slippery slope.
491
Just as electing Catholic JFK President turned the US into a Catholic nation. Bigoted, eh?
1
The Court has never been an honest broker. Remember Dred Scott. It is best for it to leave political decisions to the political branches.
if the nominee replacing Kennedy, J. is not named from the center, this appears to be just another, albeit slightly less direct, litmus test/way of rigging the vote.
1
Her religion doesn't scare me as much as the fact that she has only sat on the bench for less than a year; was an academic for over a decade, living in an ivory tower; and has never had a law practice with actual clients to see how laws actually affect the citizens of this country.
1195
On the contrary, we need more judges who haven't only been lawyers and judges, who haven't let their vision be narrowed to the text of law. For your information, academics don't necessarily live in an ivory tower. There are plenty of them, especially those who might be chosen as judges, who are active in the real world doing things that matter outside academia. I'm not saying this to support Barrett, just to correct a misconception.
2
All of your concerns you mention about Barrett (10y as an academic, never held a real job) describes Obama before he was elected president. We’re you concerned then??
4
And those with the great Harvard degrees are ........
If one is truly a Christian, be it Roman Catholic or some other form, the Faith must be at the center of one's life. It is impossible to be just a nominal Christian and faithfully follow Jesus Christ. To not allow her to become a member of the Supreme Court because of her faith would be discrimination of the worst kind. I thought that liberals believed in inclusion. John Kennedy was almost denied the presidency because he was a Catholic. That would have been wrong then, and denying Amy Barrett the Supreme Court nomination because of her faith would be just as wrong now.
84
I was a teenager when Kennedy ran for president, and I clearly remember the big deal made of his being a Catholic. My mother, a devout evangelical (Church of Christ) was very worried that Catholic doctrine would become the law of the land, if he were elected. This was the warning from the pulpit of her preacher.
Not sure how old you are, Aaron Adams, but John Kennedy made it a point to plainly state that he could and would keep his religion separate from his responsibilities as president, if he were elected. He was and he did, and eventually won my mother over. I believe it entirely appropriated to directly question Ms. Barrett on her ability to separate her dogma from the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers clearly did not believe shoving religion down the throats of the citizenry.
9
The catch is, while I certainly won't agree with religiosity per se being used as a litmus test, different individuals can have different interpretations of living the faith. For some Catholics (and other Christians), abortion is the be all end all issue. Pope Francis' version of Catholicism, while right to life, is also about environmental responsibility, care for refugees (and regardless of their own religion), opposition leader the death penalty, and more. So there is a broad spectrum of what practicing Catholics would be.
2
If she were a Muslim, and an ardent one, would you be so unwilling to question her on the impact of her faith in her jurisprudence?
I'm sure you would VERY willing to examine that connection to make sure her religious beliefs did not prevent her from faithfully following the law of the land and the Constitution.
Sorry, I'm thinking you WANT her religious beliefs on the bench -- not her independent judgment.
8
Trump does not care either way about Ms. Barrett's religious beliefs, since he obviously has none himself. (Remember, this is the man who stated he NEVER felt the need to ask God for forgiveness.) He will nominate Ms. Barrett to the Supreme Court for two reasons: 1) to infuriate his liberal, Democratic enemies, and 2) to overturn Roe v. Wade to fire up his voters. He is weaponizing Barrett's Catholicism for his selfish political ends.
Trump has no sense of precedent, sound judgment, education, or judicial philosophy. He doesn't care how they apply to the interpretation of the law. He is a sledge-hammer in a world of laser scalpels. His interview with Ms. Barrett no doubt consisted of "Will you vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?" and her reply of "Yes." That's all he cares about--red meat for his base.
But the Catholics in Trump's base should hold no celebrations. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will not STOP abortion in this country. It will only contain it to the states (California, etc.) that will keep it legal, and it will drive it underground in the states where it is outlawed. IT WILL NOT STOP.
I fear that the pro-life movement will wash its hands, say "Job's done," and walk away, leaving poor women to deal with the consequences. You cannot legislate or adjudicate morality. If Catholics want to outlaw abortion, then they had better have a HUGE social services program for food, clothing, shelter, medical assistance, and day-care. I don't think they do.
1004
Funny thing, I think Catholics would generally be fine with improving the availability of social services to support pregnant women and babies (at least if they follow Pope Francis). But it this country, the prevailing conservative sentiment is (1) no abortion; and (2) you're on your own when it comes to raising the kid.
1
Catholics like their money, they don't believe in the words of Jesus when it comes to rich helping poor. They will volunteer in a homeless shelter for an hour a week, then not want to share even 2% of their $400,000 annual income with the charity that runs the homeless shelter. They say "we've done our part", but when it comes to parting with their money, they do not want to do it much.
1
Wow, that’s a very broad brush you’re painting your anti-Catholic rant with. Is there no Catholic you’ve interacted with whom you’ve liked? If you’re up for it I can introduce you to some. As J.C. would say, “Peace be with you.”
1
Keep this in mind - A much less conservative court came very close to effectively overturning Roe v Wade in 1992. If Barrett is in thrall to a cult-like offshoot of Catholicism as suggested then it's only a matter of time before Roe v Wade is gone and 20+ states immediately outlaw abortion - which they absolutely will do, or limit it so greatly that it's an effective ban. Welcome to the Handmaid's Tale, light.
634
Welcome to back alley abortions in unclean, unsafe conditions; welcome to girls inhaling paint thinner. Welcome to the current world where our wealth disparity will ensure that the well off will still find legal abortions abroad, or in the U.S. where some States require psychiatrists to testify in front of hospital boards; abortions will still be available for medical reasons; that is an expensive process if you don't have money. We are still arguing over when life begins, and if a collection of cells can feel pain. I advise young women and their parents to get involved now; we have an Evangelical heading the SC, one more and Roe v. Wade will be fought again. The Decision was a narrow one, based on the right to privacy. Evangelicals do not respect the right to privacy when it concerns other citizens' rights to legal abortions; they do not agree on "moral" grounds. We are at a tipping point; don't ignore it.
1
I`m not so sure about the "light".
3
It's true. Some areas of the country strongly look down on killing off disabled children simply because they will not be born perfect.
As a society, we citizens get to decide whether we permit this technology to kill off the disabled citizens in the womb. Many states would not permit this. A woman does not have a "right" to a perfect child. If she doesn't want it, she can give it up after birth, or... she can risk going to a state where it is still legal to kill your disabled offspring. Or... she can take her chances, and try and find someone to illegally perform the practice when it has been outlawed in her state.
No woman has the right to unilaterally decide for society though whether we all will close our eyes and look away as "lesser" people are slaughtered. We know now that a fetus is not just a clump of cells. We know that disabled people can live rich lives. We don't all agree that a woman gets to decide, in an advanced society, whether to terminate an independent growing life. (There are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy, if you only want a "perfect" child and will not settle for less. Once you conceive though, there's another person in the picture... we're not all going to look away while those innocent ones are killed off in the name of progress and perfection.)
1
No reason for Democrats to even mention her religion. I'm sure her positions on many issues would be reason enough to oppose her. Just the fact that Trump nominated her would be enough. I might ask her about the six children she brought into the world and whether she thinks poor women have the right to bear six children they can't afford to raise without government support, whether any or all of those six children can legally be taken away from her simply because she can't provide for them, whether the father or fathers of those six children can be put in jail if they don't pay child support. Pertinent to the abortion question, I would ask her if abortion is not a right, does the government that takes away that right become morally and legally responsible for support of all children until age of majority. In a backdoor way, pro-choice Democrats can raise the fear level of white racist conservatives with questions that depict a nation of brown and black women producing six, ten, and a dozen babies each, either from religious convictions against contraception or their inability to afford it or obtain a legal abortion. That's a dastardly thing for a Democrat to do, but it's the kind of thing Republicans have always done.
575
This is a comment someone else made on another article. It explains why religion has to be mentioned:
Coney Barrett just 20 years ago co-authored a paper, "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases," with John H Garvey (currently President of the Catholic University of America, and dream leader of Gilead) that concluded Catholic judges are too greatly torn by their faith to judge certain cases?
The 2nd paragraph:
"The legal system has a solution for this dilemma-it allows (indeed it
requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job. This is a good solution. But it is harder than you think to determine when a judge must recuse himself and when he may stay on the job. Catholic judges will not want to shirk their judicial obligations. They will want to sit whenever they can without acting immorally. So they need to know what the church teaches, and its effect on them. On the other hand litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, and that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. We need to know whether judges are sometimes legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide."
Judge Amy should recuse herself from this job search.
MA, she may be a very fine person, but as she herself has written (see my other reply) she would be a terrible Justice. So to paraphrase Grove Cleveland, perhaps we should return her to her family where she excels and appoint a Justice who excels at law, logic and knowledge regardless of his family situation.
MA - Clearly her resume is that not of a distinguished jurist such as, O say, Merrick Garland.
1
Somehow the political right in this country has managed a seemingly impossible feat of shielding all forms of religion from criticism by calling it “faith”. Faith is an emotion and it is unseemly to criticize emotions. Religion is a worldview that has its own inner logic and can be rationally discussed, dissected and accepted or rejected. For millennia, the discourse of religion was called ‘the queen of sciences”: theology. Secular people often complain that American so-called Christians are ignorant of science. This may be; but it’s much worse that they are ignorant of theology. Judge Barrett’s views are not simply radical; in terms of her own church, they are heretical. Yes, the Fisrt Amendment allows you to believe anything at all but it does not shield your beliefs from criticism or compels others to respect them. Is Judge Barrett is biblical literalist? This is wrong, whether you believe in God or not. Does she hold that non-Christians are condemned to hell? This is wrong whether you believe in God or not. What are her views on predestination and free will? I want to hear a theological discussion; all I hear are people yelling at each other. Sad!
169
Mor--"Faith" is belief without any evidence. Let me repeat that. There is NO evidence for religious beliefs in anyGod, Jesus, Zeus, Enlil, Ba'al, Indra, Osiris, or any of the hundreds of others, throughout history. None. Therefore, none of it should have any influence over any part of our government, particularly our laws, or the interpretation of our laws. Each of us can believe what we want, but we CANNOT impose it on anyone else. Freedom of religion, but NOT "religious liberty." Let's get our terms right.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." ~ THOMAS JEFFERSON 1823
1
Faith is not "an emotion!" Faith is a choice, a will to believe. If Amy Barrett is a true Catholic who follows faithfully the teaching of the Church, she does not believe in predestination or that non-Catholics are doomed. We have a very Catholic Supreme Court already: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsch, all conservative votes. That, in itself, should guide Senators in their Advise and Consent duties.
This is an excellent analysis. You are correct that most secular people are wholly ignorant of theology. It is simply not taught or explained in most people's educational experience. And most secularists don't give a damn (forgive my usage.) But it does matter what religious views one holds, and how these might effect a judge's decisions, especially decisions that have an impact on all our lives. Religious views are debatable positions simply because of how they might really hurt or help certain classes of people. Let's not be afraid to inquire after someone's beliefs just because their "faith" is somehow sacrosanct, and hands off.
2