Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice

They indeed are, but we are called upon to see things as they actually are, not as we would like them to be — that’s the very nature of truth itself. Sometimes truth can be unsettling, and can force us into places in our minds that we’d rather not go. This gets back to my reductio ad absurdum example of finding prohibition on abortion where it just doesn’t exist, or finding rights (or lack of rights) in existing laws that just aren’t there.

I have a pet theory that Catholics and Jews make better Supreme Court Justices (and judges in general) because both faiths have a source of truth that is outside of the individual believer, and does not depend upon the subjective thoughts, feelings, or wishes of the believer.

Our present Supreme Court, if you count Justice Gorsuch, a Catholic who chooses to worship in the Anglican church (not condoning, just stating the fact), is entirely comprised of Catholics and Jews. I have to wonder if this is murmured against in fundamentalist Christian circles. If Jack Chick’s publishing house hasn’t yet had anything to say about this state of affairs, just wait, it’ll come sooner or later. Paul Blanshard would not be a happy camper if he were still alive today.

And to add insult to injury (from their point of view), Vice President Pence regards himself as a Catholic, he just doesn’t perceive a need to live and embrace his Christianity in an exclusively Catholic way, nor to worship exclusively in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Michael and Karen were married in the Church. In other words, he’s really just an extreme example of a “cafeteria Catholic”, and heaven knows there are enough of them running around in the world.

Do the right thing”, not quite as seditious as advertised. “Unlike…John Roberts on Obamacare.” If it is out of bounds for a presidential candidate to register disapproval with a Supreme Court decision then what are we to make of Biden’s comment last month about the Heller decision: “If I were on the Court I wouldn’t make the same ruling”? So far this is all pretty standard stuff, and “Do the right thing” is not really the same as “picked to overrule the ACA

But I will grant that he expects her to do exactly what he picked her to do: the right thing. Assume he does believe Barrett will vote to end the ACA, what is his expectation based on, and is it an unscrupulous intent? Well, if you believe the original decision was wrongly decided, as he clearly does, and you believe that someone who adheres to the actual meaning of the Constitution, as Barrett clearly does, will vote to end it (whatever that means) then where is the problem? Can we seriously take exception to nominating someone who believes the Constitution means only what it meant when it was adopted?

As with virtually everything related to Trump it is manufactured outrage.


As with all things Trump, people believe what they will believe.

Just interjecting here, the current SCOTUS is 5/8 sourced from the conservative and libertarian Federalist Society. With Barrett it will be 6/9. Religion is secondary, tertiary or irrelevant. A conservative ideology is the overriding result of Federalist Society member’s legal arguments and decisions.

There is an extremely interesting interview with Judge Barrett and Judge Amul Thapur held at Notre Dame in the spring of last year. The first 6-8 minutes give a good indication of how Judge Barrett thinks and how she would behave on the court. There was also a question about whether the SCOTUS confirmation process would itself cause some qualified candidates to recuse themselves from consideration rather than endure it. It’s at the 1:01:xx point in the interview.

If Trump can win a second term (not looking likely), and if the Republicans can retain control of the Senate (that’s also kind of shaky), Amul Thapur needs to be the next Supreme Court nominee — South Asian and a convert to Catholicism. I would dearly love to see the Democrats have to argue against a nominee of color… oh, wait, they did that already, just ask Clarence Thomas. Nil novi sub soli.

If Stephen Breyer would all of a sudden leave the Court… nah, too good to hope for. And a 8-1 Catholic majority on the Supreme Court — well, I probably wouldn’t be posting on CAF anymore, because I would have died of sheer joy!

(I count Gorsuch as a Catholic, all he would need is to abandon that Anglican business and make a good confession. To paraphrase Tom Bodett, we’ll leave the sanctuary lamp on for him.)

1 Like

I don’t think this veers too far off topic, but I have just finished watching the “cold open” from tonight’s Saturday Night Live (Saturday 17 October), and it was sheer genius. They flipped back and forth between the Trump and Biden town halls. Jim Carrey is back as Biden. Not to ruin it for people in other time zones (not sure whether they run it “live” on the West Coast), but if you haven’t already seen it, check it out, on Peacock in a few days if you have to. (I always DVR SNL myself, in case I miss it.)

The “cold opens” on SNL that deal with political issues — and they usually do — are one of the finer things about living in the United States. Neither side escapes without being skewered and lampooned. Truly a work of art.

Now I want to vote for Biden. In fact, he should make an ad about a vote for him will be a vote for four more years of Jim Carey’s caricature of him. Alec Baldwin is good, but this new this Biden is the best I have seen on SNL since Sarah Palin.

FYI - My priest mentioned that he has watched the hearings and was impressed with Ms. Barrett’s performance as someone who will vote based on the law, and not anyone’s politics. I think Trump made a first rate choice for justice, if not one that will be always in his corner.

I don’t see that, the GOP never abused a DEM candidate. Garland was treated with respect, his character was not besmirched for political gain even though they refused to vote. Kagan and Sotomayor also weren’t treated badly.


And we get the best of both worlds from Trump: pro-life, and a free market economy that best fights against poverty. Lowest unemployment in 50 years for several months all the way up to February 2020, when state Governors started shutting down businesses.

Better than the socialism and government control espoused by Democrats.


Economic policy is not black and white as your remarks imply. All US parties have a “free market economy” and “socialist elements” to varying degrees.

Of concern in the US is the extraordinary and extremely skewed distribution of wealth and incomes. This does not show promise of alleviating poverty.

You would think a nation founded by WASPs would have a few more of them on the Court. Where is the diversity?

The real question is “where was the diversity when the WASPs ran everything?”.

I was reflecting the other day, one branch of our government — the Supreme Court — is fast becoming almost a Catholic oligarchy. It’s about time! Are we not the one true Church of Christ? Are we not called to “restore all things in Christ”?

But in all fairness, if Trump is re-elected (probably won’t happen, but just if), maybe when the next seat comes open, he should appoint a Justice who is something other than Catholic or Jewish. If anyone stopped to think about it for a moment, those optics don’t look terribly good to some people. As I’ve said elsewhere, Paul Blanshard would not be in the least bit happy, and I have to think it is grinding other people’s gears as well.

Has anybody heard any grumblings about this yet?

It was a majority WASP nation, of course the ruling class would reflect that. You might as well ask where the diversity in China is what with the Han running everything in a majority Han nation.

I know I’m showing my age on this, but I long for the day when it’s not all about sex and politics. When we stop looking for a ‘woman’ to do X job, or a Republican, or a Democrat, or a person of X minority, simply because some people ‘perceive’ that a gender or a political party or an ethnicity or whatever hasn’t been ‘fairly represented’, and start looking for somebody (no matter their sex, politics, ethnicity, whatever) who is the best person for the job.

To give an example, while I am not enamoured of Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump, or of their political parties, back in 2016 there were people, in the primaries and ‘outside’ whom I liked a LOT better than “Trump and Hilary” and today in 2020 there were people in the primaries and in both the Democratic and OTHER parties (like American Solidarity Party for example) whom I liked a lot better than Biden and Harris. And especially with Biden, he ‘insisted’ on picking a woman, not because of all the possible candidates for the VP position the given person he chose was the best, but first and foremost because she was a ‘woman’. I’m a woman and I found that offensive. Don’t tell me I should rejoice because ‘a woman’ is in the race. If I should be rejoicing, it should be because the best possible person for the job is running. I find Joe’s decision patronising and wrongheaded.


The United States has an economic system that best fights poverty: Only 3% of United States population is considered to be low income, and only 2% poor rate by World Bank global standards (per Pew Research Center). The rest of the world: 56% low income and 15% poor by World Bank global standards.

The character assassination of Robert Bork first ignited the partisan political warfare.
Joe Biden played a key role in the political declaration of war that turned Bork’s last name into a verb. On Tuesday, he bragged about that.

Asked about abortion, the former senator — and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman — bragged, “When I defeated Robert Bork, I made sure we guaranteed a woman’s right to choose for the better part of a generation.”


I’m old enough to remember when there was not as huge a difference between ordinary workers and execs and professionals as there is today. But I think maybe it’s a supply and demand problem fundamentally. Too many people trying to get the same jobs on the lower end (including 11 million or so illegals, perhaps more) along with cheap foreign labor, and too few doctors, NPs and CPAs.

No, but how many people know Gorsuch is a quasi-Catholic?

WOW! If I was his age, I would only be saying that in a confessional.


Could you please post a reference to the source. Here’s a different view:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit