Supreme Court

Senate Democrats Have Stopped Attacking Amy Coney Barrett's Faith for Now

Republicans understandably prepared for attacks on Barrett's faith which thankfully haven't materialized.

|

Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett began today as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee gave their opening remarks in preparation for a vote to advance her nomination.

The confirmation is expected to be a contentious one. There's the back-and-forth over the merits of confirming a justice in an election year. There are the broader political implications of a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court. And there is the issue of how Barrett was treated in 2017 during her confirmation hearings for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In a reference to Barrett's devout Catholic faith, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, remarked that "the dogma lives loudly within you"—a comment that has inspired lasting outrage over Democrats' hostility toward religious liberty.

Republican senators prepared accordingly today. "In 2017, they suggested Judge Barrett was too faithful or too Catholic to be a judge," noted Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa). Such criticisms are an "attempt to bring back to days of the religious test," said Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.). "This committee isn't in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are good and which religious beliefs are bad and which religious beliefs are weird," said Sen. Ben Sasse (R–Neb.).

Sasse is correct. Refreshingly, Senate Democrats didn't revive those anti-Catholic attacks, and it appears it might stay that way.

At a mid-hearing press conference, Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) said he "couldn't think of a single" Democratic senator who intended on bringing up Barrett's faith. When asked by reporters, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden issued similar comments, telling them that Barrett's faith "should not be considered."

Durbin and Biden obviously don't speak for the whole Democratic Party. But it does seem like there's room to be cautiously optimistic that Senate Democrats realized an open disdain for religious liberty is a losing strategy.

NEXT: Hamilton on Judicial Nominations

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >>the issue of how Barrett was treated in 2017

    (D) was a bigger dog in 2017

  2. Any openly atheist or agnostic people on the Supreme Court? How about any federal court? Has the United States Senate ever confirmed such a person? You people have some fucking nerve.

      1. They have an annoying habit [at least the ones I personally know] of voting D no matter who.

        Conservative Jews, different story. I don’t know any Orthodox but from what I’ve been reading about happenings in NYC, I am hopeful.

        1. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…..Click here

    1. Have you ever heard of an obscure judge named Oliver Wendell Holmes?

      1. But was he swinging the devil’s dick when they confirmed him?

        1. What are you going on about?

          1. It means was that judge open about his views on religion, open about his atheism while the Senate was confirming him? I seriously doubt it.

            1. If they can’t take her down on religion, they’ve got nothing.

              Welcome Justice Barrett, I hope you have a very productive 40 years of ruling on the Constitution for what it says, not what progressives want it to say. .

      2. Yes, we can think him for not being able to scream “fire” in a crowded theater, but I believe he was thinking about political speech when he came up with that particular trope.

    2. Lol, she even dressed like she is auditioning for The Handmaid’s Tale.

      1. Why is bigotry always most transparent in those claiming others as bigots.

        1. You mean like you are doing right now?

          1. Youre not an adult are you.

            1. That dress shows as purple/violet/mauve (whatever) on my screen. Catholic clergy wear that color in Lent and advent, not in “ordinary time.” [Ex-Catholic, ex-altar boy, here.] ACB has an Amy Adams,/Jenna Fischer vibe going on.

      2. You’re absolutely right. She should be out there showing skin like Nancy Pelosi does.

        Or maybe Hillary Clinton

        Or that firebrand AOC

        Or Omar Ilhan. She doesn’t dress like she’s auditioning for the Handmaid’s Tale. No sir. She just dresses like a Muslim woman. Notable for how freely they dress.

        1. Yes, No, No, Yes, No

    3. You people have some fucking nerve.

      The atheist communists/Marxists only managed to kill 150 million people in the last century, but, by all means, please go on and on about how the reformed Catholic church is the problem.

      You and all your progressive buddies are piss-all-over-yourself ignorant.

      1. What am I ignorant about? You sound like the one with the twisted understanding of history. Blaming Atheists for genocide is like blaming right handed people for the crimes of other right handed people. And yet on the other hand I can point to passages in religious books that in fact do encourage murder and genocide. And I can point to actual murders and genocide committed in the name of religion. No one kills in the name of atheism. There’s no script to it. It’s a step out from agnosticism but nothing more.

        1. No one kills in the name of atheism. There’s no script to it.

          Really? Every religion or creed combined throughout history has not managed to kill as many people as the commies did in the last hundred years. The Inquisitions lasted 350 years and killed less than 10K. Keep telling yourself that the religious books are the problem and not the Holy Communist Manifesto, you shitstain.

          I am sure the 5 million Uighars in concentration camps in China right now would love to hear your explanation as to why they deserve to be eradicated for their beliefs.

          Blood and souls for the CCP!

        2. Russian government literally killed religious people to remove religion as a central tenant and offer more devotion to the state. See also Mao.

          1. And Nigeria. And Congo. And Cambodia. Communism bad. Muslims too.

        3. Religion had it’s centuries, but the national socialists and the commies (in particular) took mass killing to industrial levels in their century. But the root cause wasn’t atheism.

          Certain staffers and allies of major DNC candidates openly call for death camps for political enemies — the extremists of the Party believe it worked out okay for Stalin and Mao. Death camps should be avoided by everyone, Catholic, Jew, atheist, etc.

        4. Was the Soviet Union not an Atheist state? Is not Communist China an atheist state? Have not basically every communist dictatorship been an atheist state?

          Understand that I say this as a hardcore, cold-blooded, baby-eating atheist – I understand the nihilism that can come into existence when you’re searching for your own ethical rules to live by in an inherently amoral universe. Don’t shrink away from the horrors that the unchained can perpetuate. Seek to understand why so you can do better.

          1. North Korea is not an atheist state. It replaced a traditional god with the Kim dynasty, who are gods in the North Korean cult they built.

            Kim Jong Un is literally, not figuratively, the god of North Korea. Their myth has included the birth of the god Kim Il Sung on a mountaintop, appearing fully formed as a young man, like magic.

            Cut off from the rest of the world, generations of the People’s Republic believe that Dear Leader is the alpha and omega. All good flows from him, all evil flows from when his guard is relaxed. They pray for his survival, even in their misery.

            … which helps explain why no one dares overthrow the regime. They don’t fear hunger. They fear the death of a Kim.

        5. We can all point to passages written by atheists justifying mass murder in the name of worshiping the state.

          1. Ahhh you have read the comments of kill all rednecks I see

        6. Stalin USSR was atheist. His regime killed over ten million people.

        7. Only because the atheistic part of the Communist movements do not count…for reasons that are not apparent.

        8. All but the yelling and screaming, but don’t let me interrupt you; please, go on.

        9. No one kills in the name of atheism

          Lol, this is why lefties are lefties, a profound ignorance of history.

          Now I imagine pointing out all the religious persecution by officially atheist states like the Mao’s China or Mussolini’s Italy will have Stroozele squawking that it doesn’t count because Communism and Fascism too. So here’s just three examples where atheists genocided people for being religious:

          – League of Militant Atheists “the Storming of Heaven”
          – Plutarco Calles’ Cristero war
          – The War in the Vendee

          There are thousands of examples to choose from, but I wanted Stroozele to actually look up these examples of mass murdering strictly for the sake of atheism itself and realize the truth.

          1. The problem is that Marxism isn’t actually atheist. It worships at the altars of State and Class. They oppose traditional religions not because of religiousness, but because they assert an authority above the State.

            -League of Militant Atheists – Marxists (see above), and the only one of these actively directed against (standard) religion per se.

            -Cristero War – anticlerical is not the same thing as anti-religion. Arguably, there was too much Catholic control of Mexican politics. (That Calles was an atheist doesn’t mean the war was *because of* his atheism – Mexico would hardly be the first country which had a problem with church control of the government). Notably, the ‘war’ (it was a rebellion) wasn’t directed against religious belief in general, and violence was started by the catholic peasants, so its more of a religious war against institutional atheism (that is, government as a non-religious institution, rather than atheism as a belief).

            -More properly a war of religion waged against atheism than the other way around, as the ‘religious’ group was a counter-revolution to the french revolution. (Revolutionary France was more concerned about their Royalism than their religion).

    4. “Any openly atheist or agnostic people on the Supreme Court?”

      You seem to be using the word “agnostic” improperly. Agnostics are people who don’t think there is enough evidence to form an opinion. I question the intelligence of people who can’t pick a side in the face of uncertainty. Hell, all science is performed in the face of uncertainty. If applied mathematics is performed within a certain factor of uncertainty. Making rational judgments despite the uncertainty is part of the human condition.

      There are believers who are sure they are right–just like there are atheists who are sure they’re right. I consider them both to be irrational for the same reason–they refuse to embrace the reality of uncertainty. The rational ones are the believers and the atheists who make their arguments despite the uncertainty–not the ones who aren’t smart enough to account for uncertainty so they claim there isn’t enough evidence to believe or not believe either way.

      If an alien from the future suddenly appeared before someone and threatened to blow his or her head off with a ray-gun unless they correctly answered the question of whether there was a God, an agnostic might reach into his or her pocket and flip a coin–because he or she honestly doesn’t have an opinion one way or the other. Rational people use the available information to form a reasonable but qualified opinion.

      Have people been confirmed to the Supreme Court without absolute certainty that there’s a God? I suspect every single one of them–even the Christians. After all, faith isn’t the absence of uncertainty. It’s what people believe despite the uncertainty. Do you know the difference between a working theory and a fact? Yeah, I don’t think you really know what that word “agnostic” means. And why would we want someone on the court who can’t form an opinion despite the uncertainty of the real world?

      1. Of course I know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. And I agree atheism is like religion in the way you described but of course it’s so unlike religion as well. You glossing over the fact that atheism is a small step of arguably irrational belief. Religion is the cross country trip.

        1. I didn’t say atheism was like religion per se. I was saying that rationality generally requires a legitimate appreciation for the fact of uncertainty. And the point was that all the rational people who have been on the Court were rational in that way–regardless of whether they were believers or atheists. And if that’s the way it is, why are we asking about agnostics? We may be better off if they screen out all the appointees who aren’t smart enough to form an appropriate opinion given the pertinent facts and despite the uncertainty.

      2. Agnostics are people who don’t think there is enough evidence to form an opinion. I question the intelligence of people who can’t pick a side in the face of uncertainty.

        Speak for yourself, there is no fence upon which to pick a side and un/certainty has nothing to do with it. Agnoticism exists as a pretty simple premise: the existince of God is non-falsifiable but the attributes he is given violate the laws of the universe as we understand them. I have a very strong opinion: the probability that the God of the Old Testament exists is zero. That is not the same as an atheist.

        1. “Agnoticism exists as a pretty simple premise: the existince of God is non-falsifiable but the attributes he is given violate the laws of the universe as we understand them. I have a very strong opinion: the probability that the God of the Old Testament exists is zero.”

          George Washington never skipped a silver dollar all the way across the Potomac. For one thing, the Potomac is too wide there at Mt. Vernon, and it was too wide back in President Washington’s day, too. No one is physically strong enough to accomplish that. For another thing, silver dollars didn’t exist in George Washington’s day–so he couldn’t have skipped one all the way across the Potomac. However, that doesn’t mean George Washington didn’t exist or that he didn’t lead his army across the Delaware River and defeat Hessian auxiliaries on the morning of December 26, 1776.

          The stories of the Trojan War are full of gods and larger than life heroes. I don’t buy the stories about Athena, the Trojan horse, the cyclops, and the sirens, but for all I know there was someone like Ulysses, and he may have helped lay siege to a city and then made his way back to Ithaca. One of the aspects of fallibilism holds that the things that are most likely to be true are the things that can withstand the most and best scrutiny.

          When I scrutinize the Old Testament, I see a lot of people skipping silver dollars across the Potomac River, but the probability of a real God resembling the stripped down aspects of the one portrayed in the Old Testament isn’t zero percent. Doesn’t zero percent suggest absolute certainty? That’s a bold claim you’re making. I’m certainly not willing to claim that the God of the Old Testament is real and exactly as described with absolute certainty.

          1. Doesn’t zero percent suggest absolute certainty?

            I rounded down.

            but the probability of a real God resembling the stripped down aspects of the one portrayed in the Old Testament isn’t zero percent.

            As I said, I rounded down. But not very far. No one is saying God is so strong he can skip a silver dollar across the Potomoc, the sacred texts say he can create something from nothing. He can turn H20 into CH3COH. He can part the Red Sea and raise the dead. He is omniscient and has powers that violate the laws of the universe as we understand them. He can perform miracles.

            1. Some of that stuff is a hard sell, but I think we’ve already discussed that.

          2. If you strip out all the silver dollar skipping, can you really call what’s left a god?

            1. Ever read the Book of Hebrews? It makes a pretty good case–by quoting the Old Testament–that the basics never really changed.

              “And [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness”

              —-Genesis 15:6

              Yeah, there is some consistent stuff that runs all the way through the narrative, about the nature of God and how he relates to us among other things.

          3. A “silver dollar” would have been a Spanish “piece of 8.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_dollar
            There are at least 2 kinds of agnostics. One hasn’t made up his mind about the existence of deities, yet, and may never. The other thinks the question can’t be answered. Perhaps a fine difference, I know. (Or can I know?)

        2. The existence of God is falsifiable. The *non-existence* of God may not be.may be also – depending on what your definition of ‘God’ is. And no, we do not have a consistent definition of what God is even among Christians.

      3. “Yeah, I don’t think you really know what that word “agnostic” means. And why would we want someone on the court who can’t form an opinion despite the uncertainty of the real world?”

        Admitting to not possessing enough information to make a decision is a bad thing?

        1. Being indecisive isn’t a good thing, and if you wait for all the information to become available before you come to a decision on this topic, you will never come to a decision.

          Meanwhile, the decision you make doesn’t need to be made with absolute certainty. Do you think the available information suggests that there’s a flying spaghetti monster out there orbiting the sun or don’t you? I think the odds are against it–but I’ll never have definitive proof.

          When it comes to the question of whether there’s a God, you can color me cautiously optimistic. I find the cosmological argument for God rather persuasive. No, it doesn’t prove anything definitively. I could still be wrong. I don’t know God’s exact nature with anything like certainty either, but ask me about the principles outlined in the Sermon on the Mount, and I’ll tell you I’m impressed.

          How hard is it to form an opinion given whatever facts you have? Scientists do this all the time! And then they test those hypotheses.

          Do you thin Kansas City will repeat as Superbowl champions this year? Maybe Mahomes goes down with an injury. Maybe he doesn’t. We won’t know until it happens. I don’t know what will happen with the certainty–they might win without him. I can form an opinion about what I think will probably happen anyway–even without knowing all the facts. I just can’t make a claim to certainty, and that’s what most people seem to think agnosticism means.

          Agnostic doesn’t not mean uncertainty. Rationality requires uncertainty. That quality isn’t peculiar to agnosticism. What’s peculiar to agnosticism is believing that there is so little evidence one way or the other that you can’t even form an opinion that’s tempered with uncertainty. You can not have enough facts to say something with absolute certainty, but to not know enough to even form an opinion with uncertainty as a feature, you’re dancing on the edge of evasive at the very least.

          1. So everything you just said seems to contradict the following statement you made in your original post:

            “You seem to be using the word “agnostic” improperly. Agnostics are people who don’t think there is enough evidence to form an opinion. I question the intelligence of people who can’t pick a side in the face of uncertainty.”

            What am I missing?

            1. Forming an opinion that incorporates uncertainty is not the same as claiming that there isn’t enough evidence to form an opinion.

              If you say that there isn’t enough evidence so you don’t believe in God, despite the uncertainty, then you are not agnostic. You are an atheist. Atheism means you don’t believe in God. If you believe that there is enough evidence to believe in God–despite the uncertainty–you are not an agnostic either. You are a believer. Rational believers and rational atheists both account for the uncertainty and form an opinion.

              An agnostic is someone who claims they are incapable of forming an opinion with the given evidence, and that is not impressive. When most people describe themselves as agnostic, they imagine that their uncertainty separates them from believers and atheists. That is not so. Embracing uncertainty may be better than claiming they’re sure there is or isn’t a God, but being uncertain doesn’t separate agnostics from rational atheists or rational believers–both of whom are also accounting for the uncertainty.

              Believer: Given the available evidence, I believe Kansas City probably will win the Superbowl this year.

              Atheist: Given the available evidence, I believe Kansas City will not win the Superbowl this year.

              Agnostic: I don’t believe there is enough evidence to form an opinion one way or the other.

              The uncertainty of agnostics does not in any way make their position superior to rational believers. The presence of uncertainty doesn’t even differentiate them from rational believers. The thing that differentiates them from rational believers (and rational atheists) is their unwillingness to form an opinion.

              Can’t help but wonder if that extends to other areas of their lives. Does your girlfriend really love you? Will my business partner screw me over in the future? Rational people form an opinion based on the available evidence and incorporate the uncertainty.

              Agnostics refuse to form an opinion and typically cite the uncertainty as if recognizing it somehow makes them different from and superior to rational believers–and they’re wrong. Refusing to either get married or not or refusing to either form a business partnership or not doesn’t make them superior. It just makes them indecisive.

          2. Being indecisive isn’t a good thing, and if you wait for all the information to become available before you come to a decision on this topic, you will never come to a decision.

            Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

      4. Ken seems to think that there’s some compelling reason to form an opinion on the topic. He can’t seem to fathom that there isn’t. But I’m spit-balling a bit, because Ken didn’t offer any clues as to why he’s so against admitting ignorance in the face of total uncertainty.

      5. “I question the intelligence of people who can’t pick a side in the face of uncertainty.” Did you give that broad stroke any thought? What would your answer be to my question “I just flipped a coin. Did it come up heads or tails?” Would you really question the intelligence of someone who says they don’t know? If so, perhaps your intelligence should be questioned.

        1. When there is no evidence whatsoever, that might be one thing. When there is no 100% compelling evidence but there is evidence nonetheless, that’s different.

          There is some evidence in the example you gave: If it’s a fair coin, my opinion is that there’s a 50% chance that it’s heads–and I feel pretty strongly about that opinion.

          Wanna argue about it?

          You can form a rational opinion with limited evidence–but your opinion must account for an appropriate amount of uncertainty. Even Jesus had his doubts.

          “My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

          1. ,,or so it is said.

            There may have been a historical Josh, or more than one. I don’t trust the “evidence” for any magical ones.

    5. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do….. chak it

    6. Oh, I’m sorry – it must be really upsetting to continually watch the Democrats put up candidates and only confirm people who profess a strong religious faith.

      You people have some fucking nerve.

    7. Here a better question, what if a Moslem were nominated to the Supreme Court, would that person’s faith be attacked? I know there are probably a few Moslem judges in the Federal system, but I don’t know how many and if any have made it to the appellate level. I like to see the confirmation hearing for such a judge to the appellate court or SCOTUS.

  3. Can we really trust a Roman Papist with interpreting American law in this nation’s highest court of justice?

    1. I already made the joke last week about Judge Amy going in for her annual papist smear.

    2. Would you prefer a Thomas More or a Thomas Cromwell?

    3. You could apply similar to old Ginsburg? The religion of cultural marxism? It is a religion isn’t it?

    4. We trusted a Jew with that – and we all know they’re all in on that cabal thing.

      1. Shows your ignorance. I don’t know about what she did in the privacy of her home, but RBG didn’t live as a Jew in public. She never refrained from work due to religious observance. She never stopped for prayer as an adult, as far as is known. She didn’t plan for any Jewish death rituals or immediate burial, prior to her death, despite decades of cancer and illness. She didn’t instruct her children in religious observances, as far as is known, and that education is entrusted to women in Judaism. In fact, she was too ignorant in her own religion to have passed along any of it, having pushed her career far in front of any faith.

        May she Rest In Peace. Though I doubt she’ll have it, for having done so much in her life to remove the rights of others to practice their faiths fully.

        1. . . . but RBG didn’t live as a Jew in public.

          Of course she didn’t. You’re not going to eat babies in public.

  4. “In a reference to Barrett’s devout Catholic faith, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, remarked that “the dogma lives loudly within you”—a comment that has inspired lasting outrage over Democrats’ hostility toward religious liberty.”

    Feinstein knows a lot about the intersection of religion and government. After all if it hadn’t been for the support of Jim Jones and his People’s Temple, Feinstein wouldn’t have had much of a political career at all. And she was always so grateful for everything Jim Jones did to get her and her friends elected, too–right up until it became embarrassing.

    “Feinstein, Milk, Moscone, and future mayor Willie Brown all supported Jones even after he and his followers fled to the jungles of Guyana.”

    —-Tim Cavanaugh

    https://reason.com/2012/09/30/san-franciscos-darkest-hours/

    Now we’re supposed to pretend that Feinstein never had anything to do with Jim Jones and the People’s Temple. She may not have literally drank the kool-aid, but she sure as hell “drank the kool-aidl”. And watching her criticize other people for their religious beliefs is a hoot.

    1. She may have supported them, but I don’t believe there’s evidence that it benefitted her or started her career. They never had the voting bloc.

      1. You should read this whole article, but here’s a choice bit:

        “Jones soon learned that his control over a well-organized, mixed-race army of some 8,000 dedicated followers gave him major stature with San Francisco’s liberal elite . . . . Jones could be counted on to deliver busloads of obedient, well-dressed disciples to demonstrations, campaign rallies, and political precincts. The city’s liberal Burton machine — run by congressional powerhouse Phil Burton — quickly identified the Peoples Temple juggernaut as a potentially game-changing ally in its long battle to take over city hall.

        It was Burton ally Willie Brown – a rising force in California’s state capital — who first recognized that Jones’s organization could play a pivotal role in his friend George Moscone’s run for mayor. . . . Bradley enthusiastically embraced Jones’s volunteer army. Nearly 200 temple members showed up at Moscone headquarters, fanning out to campaign in some of the city’s toughest neighborhoods, and helping the candidate finish first in the November 1975 election.

        In the December runoff between Moscone and Barbagelata, Peoples Temple went even further to secure victory for its candidate. On the eve of the election, Jones filled buses with temple members in Redwood Valley and Los Angeles and shuttled them to San Francisco. Security at polling places was lax on Election Day, and many nonresidents were able to cast their ballots for Moscone, some more than once. “You could have run around to 1200 precincts and voted 1200 times,” said a bitter Barbagelata later, after losing by a whisper of a margin. But he was not the only one who claimed that the Peoples Temple stole the election for George Moscone. Temple leaders also claimed credit.

        “We loaded up all 13 of our buses with maybe 70 people on each bus, and we had those buses rolling nonstop up and down the coast into San Francisco the day before the election,” recalled Jim Jones Jr. “We had people going from precinct to precinct to vote. So could we have been the force that tipped the election to Moscone? Absolutely! Slam dunk. He only won by 4,000 votes.”

        https://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/jim_jones_sinister_grip_on_san_francisco/

        Jim Jones parlayed Moscone’s debt to him for getting him elected into having Moscone put him and his followers in charge of all the public housing in San Francisco, a position he used to drum up membership in his church and to deliver even more votes for his friends in government. Feinstein, Milk, Moscone, Jerry Brown, and Willie Brown all owed something to Jim Jones for getting them elected, and since they owed him, everyone who owed them owed him, too. Feinstein knows all about disgusting. She was in the middle of it with all the rest.

    2. It was Flavor Aid down in Jonestown. Kool Aid Man would have rescued the kids, at least!

  5. If, in fact, she was part of a Catholic plot to rewrite the Constitution, then that would be a legitimate reason to oppose her.

    But what if if, on the other hand, her very faith leads her to hold fast to the Constitution and resist the Democrats’ efforts to amend it by interpretation? And what if her faith leads her to defend the rights in the Constitution against those who would want those rights cancelled – like the right to life and the closely-related right to bear arms in self-defense against aggressors?

    1. Bingo. Faith leads to an understanding of Natural Law and the inalienable rights given to all by our Creator by the nature of our existence, enshrined in our Constitution as the rights to believe as we wish, express what we wish, and defend ourselves as we wish.

  6. They finally realized that attacking her for being Catholic isn’t a good look because their pretend-candidate is also Catholic.

    1. They finally realized that attacking her for being Catholic isn’t a good look because their pretend-candidate is also *pretend* Catholic.

      Fixed it.

    2. More likely they finally realized that Latinos are Catholic, and banking on said Catholics to win you an election right after publicly excoriating Barret for being Catholic might not be the best strategy.

      1. Most Latinos are nominally Catholic. Evangelical Protestantism has been making inroads.

  7. They can still attack her without using the word “Catholic”. She’s pro-life, because she’s Catholic, so they can attack her for being pro-life without directly attacking her faith.

    They’re progressives so the idea that someone could have a position of authority and refrain from using it to inflict their personal beliefs on the world at large never occurs to them. She’s not going to force all of us to go to mass on Sunday mornings even though she firmly believes we’ll all go to hell if we don’t. Do we have reason to believe she’d use the terrifying violence of government to force her other beliefs on us?

    1. Sure – but then they’re attacking her stances. You can – and we do – do that with all candidates.

  8. If an official, for any reason including religion, does a bad job safeguarding the Constitution and the public interest, then they’re open to criticism for not safeguarding the Constitution and the public interest, whether the motive be religious or secular.

    Haldeman and Ehrlichman tried to impose their Christian Science beliefs on the country by getting Congress to bribe the states into limiting mandated medical treatment of sick kids – if their parents were Christian Scientists.

    Now *there’s* a legitimate case of criticizing someone’s religion-based actions – just as a secular public official who was an anti-vaxxer would merit criticism.

    In contrast, the brave men who fought and often died for their country because they thought it was their religious duty are not awkward and embarrassing, but instead are heroic and good. Likewise the atheist who risks his life in battle for whatever atheist-in-a-foxhole reason.

    So long as we’re against the action and don’t get sidetracked too much onto the reason for the action, we can be fair to all religions, and non-religions.

    1. You call it impose. I call it getting government to respect religious freedom.

      No state should be forcing the children of Christian Science believers, or any other faith, to have any medical treatments. Government should not be involved with medicine at all, least by interfering with family choices made with love and concern, whether you think it’s ignorant or not.

  9. This was the greatest tool in the Democrats’ box and they’re pissing it away and she’s going to be confirmed. And so it sounds like we’re all going to have to be fitted for a Handmaid’s Tale outfit.

    1. I may spruce mine up with a bit of lace. It will look great with some sensible shoes and black socks.

    2. Is that a good thing or bad thing?

  10. Wow, that was a big change from LAST WEEK! It’s only Monday, give them time.

  11. Now they are attacking her as racist for being proud of her adoptive kids athletic accomplishments given she was told they may never walk due to malnourished states when adopted.

    1. I heard the Barretts adopted those black kids to be unpaid domestic servants. That’s what I heard.

      1. Me too; I think it was on twat space.

    2. WTF how can they think that plays well?

      1. Most leftists won’t read past the tweet or headline:

        Amy Magnus
        @cleverclue
        Replying to @Lecteronthelam and @offbeatorbit
        Barrett’s opening statement was telling.

        One guess who she praises for their academic progress & who she jokes about being able to speak after bragging how much they can deadlift.

        The statement was immediately proceeded by ACB discussing how malnourished her adopted kids were at 14 months weighing 11 lbs.

    3. By forcing them to beat the odds in athletics, she is denying their true identity as helpless victims.

  12. “This committee isn’t in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are good and which religious beliefs are bad and which religious beliefs are weird,” said Sen. Ben Sasse (R–Neb.).

    But Muslims need not apply – especially if they want Sharia law in the USA.

    And I agree with that – which may surprise some of you conservatives like Jesse or ML.

    But what if she puts Christian Sharia above the US Constitution like that jackass Judge Moore in Alabama? Would that disqualify her?

    1. The Christian Sharia that ended slavery and got the West the Fundamental Rights of Man.

    2. 1. What Christian Sharia?

      2. How is she going to do that single-handedly?

      Or are you being racists again by assuming that all conservatives must be deep-South evangelicals handling snakes in an unairconditioned tent?

    3. All but the yelling and screaming; doing a fine job of it, by the way.

  13. “…But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.” ACB

    That statement made publicly opens her up to justified questioning on where her judicial loyalties lay. Does she serve God first, or her Country? And if Country, what kind of Christian does that make her? That said, from what I’ve heard she’ll make a fine addition to the Court and I hope she is swiftly confirmed.

    1. I would bet she serves God first, but understands to give to Cesar that which is Cesar’s.

      I think she will uphold the constitution and law, and if she thinks it is morally wrong she will vote accordingly.

      1. I mean vote as a citizen who votes for elected officials (not vote in her decision as a judge).

        1. “..to know, love and serve ghod…” is right out of the Baltimore Catechism I had to learn by rote in first grade back in the early 60s. All of us mackerel-snappers-in-training had to memorize that. I still like a nice fish dinner. I broiled some tilapia tonight.

    2. If she serves her country first – it fucking doesn’t matter what sort of Christian she is. That’s between her and the church.

    3. All Christians “render unto Ceasar.” Her moral beliefs are certainly there, but then so is the Constitution [originalist], statute [textualist] and precedent. If those things are ever contrary and cause her internal discord, that is much to her credit; but she must rule accordingly or find herself outside the law. And I think we’ve had enough of that.

  14. The liberals of last century left religion alone or even championed religious freedom, perhaps in opposition to the feuding sects on the right, each claiming the One Truth.

    The liberals of this century have been born again as Woke zealots, and embraced religious thinking about their Holy Cause. And like all zealots, they cannot abide a competing religion.

    1. And their judges most certainly rule according to “their” religion. Which is apparently fine with the progressive element, as long as they get what they want.

  15. The Democratt’s focus groups revealed that attacking Barret’s religion was a net liability so after a month of testing the waters by attacking her religion in social media they are pretending to be taking the high road. It’s not complicated or even particularly interesting.

  16. This is about one thing sports fans..abortion..the highest “right” of being human..didn’t you know that? My “progressive” NYC friends have said abortion should be the first amendment..and the rest are not that important and can be dropped

    1. “My “progressive” NYC friends have said abortion should be the first amendment..and the rest are not that important and can be dropped”

      Your “friends” are myopic idiots, but I suspect you already know that.

  17. The dogma lives loudly within me!

  18. Great article. 🙂

    1. Porn bot? It’s about time.

  19. Free minds….
    Adhering to dogma and ideology is not a free mind.
    I agree this is all about R v. W.

    1. What [non Democrat appointed] nominee to SCOTUS has NOT been about R v. W? It’s the one issue that gets the most people stirred up. “Oh my God, Handmaid’s Tale is coming!”

      1. Atwood annoys real science fiction fans. She won’t even admit that is what she’s been writing. Can’t get any pulp-cooties your LitFic bibliography, No-Ma’am-re-Roberta!

        Now, if I fretted we were heading for “The Rainbow Cadenza”…..

  20. In the land of fantasy; Federal government committee members asks the supreme court nominee, “Do you think the U.S. Constitution’s enumerated powers limits the power and scope of the federal government and do you plan on voting to uphold that Constitution strictly?”

    1. In the land of reality no fucking politician, of any stripe, is going to ask that.

      1. It horrifyingly amazing isn’t it. The job of government politician is probably the only job on the planet where you’ll be asked 5M question of which not a single one is about being competent at your job.

  21. Choose reason. Every time.

    Choose reason. Especially over sacred ignorance, dogmatic intolerance, or childish backwardness.

    Choose reason. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for superstition, ignorance, backwardness, gullibility, bigotry. By adulthood — including ostensible adulthood — it is no excuse.

    Choose reason. Every time. And education, tolerance, modernity, science, freedom, progress, and inclusiveness. Avoid superstition, ignorance, backwardness, bigotry, insularity, authoritarianism, dogma, and pining for good old days that never existed — not 50 years ago, not 2,000 years ago.

    Choose reason. Every time. Recognize that people are entitled to believe as they wish, but that competent citizens neither accept nor advance superstition-based arguments or positions in reasoned debate among adults, particularly with respect to public affairs.

    Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.

    Or, at least, please try.

    Otherwise, you could wind up as a grown woman who believes she is a “handmaid.”

    1. Kirkland, you fail to choose reason each and every time. You choose dogmatic intolerance, making assertions based solely on opinion. You choose immaturity, not citing facts, and using ad hominem attacks every post. I doubt anyone here will suggest you try to be an adult, you seem a partisan ideologue stuck in your in-group biases and never to change.

      1. I liked the admission that he’s a ten year old.

    2. FEED COMMENTORS, STARVE TROLLS.

      There is absolutely nothing of any value here; nothing but hate, biliousness, and resentment [which is best described as taking a poison and expecting the other person to get sick].

  22. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>Click here.

  23. It’s not unreasonable to object to packing the court with conservative Catholics. Given the Catholic tilt of the conservative movement for decades, this is no accident.

    1. I’d really like see an atheist or agnostic on the court. The population of the U.S. that does not have a religious preference was about 21% in 2014. That percentage is not actively “atheist” but neither do they care what Catholic dogma says about abortion or birth control.

  24. CNN

    Throughout the day, Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been frank at times, passionate at other times. But there have also been occasions where she’s been stern with the senators.

    It is a tone reminiscent of how Justice Neil Gorsuch responded at times when he was sparring with members of the committee during his own confirmation hearing.

    Barrett and Gorsuch also have a similar line when outlining their conservative judicial philosophies and stressing their belief that courts can’t always sweep in to solve society’s woes.

    Barrett pressed the point that as a judge — she is not a “Queen.”

    “Nobody wants to live in a court with the ‘law of Amy,'” she said at one point and added, “I can ensure you my children don’t even want that.”

    As for Gorsuch, he has said judges wear “robes, not capes.”

    “Do you really want me to rule the country?” he told CNN during an interview last year.

    1. Sen Amy Klobuchar allowed as she wouldn’t mind being Queen. I hope her future opponents save that clip.

  25. It is very valid to question her faith. If she is a true believer, then she knows in her core that church law is g-d’s law. Thus she has a problem when US law conflicts with church law, for she either has to betray her faith to vote against the will of g-d, or violate her duty as a justice. Questioning which one she will pick is important.

  26. A whole article about what conservatives were hoping Democrats would do (so they could get in a huff about it) but did not. Oh, how disappointing.

    1. Yes Yes …. Lester, the Real Americans get IT ….. sucks to be an Americahater

Please to post comments