Amy Coney Barrett says a justice’s duty is to defend the comstitution


“I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks is clearly in conflict with it.”


I think I would be happy if she were the pick, especially after the Dems previously criticised her for her pro-life Catholicism.

The Dems would find it harder to criticise her now without being exposed for their anti-Catholicism and hopefully she will stand true to her faith.


This may soon be the mainstream understanding on the Supreme Court if President Trump nominates her or anyone else like her.

Last week the court issued two different opinions that reversed previous rulings. One was about forcing non-members to pay union fees, and the other was about the collection of state sales taxes by businesses without a physical presence in the state. Previous decisions are important, but judges humble enough to admit a previous decision was wrong has been very rare. I hope that kind of humility will spread to politicians in the legislative and executive branches.


The ™Dems did this.
Can you support this?


According to Dianne Feinstein, ultra-leftist Senator from California, one’s “Cathoic Dogma” is a concern.

"Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed those concerns Wednesday at a confirmation hearing, telling Barrett that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern "


I really like what I read of Amy but I also think there is legit room to object to a SCOTUS pick that was approved to a Circuit Court.


Perhaps, but it is a thin line. And one’s religious beliefs are frankly irrelevant.
Feinstein’s overt bigotry against Catholics is remarkable, but apparently acceptable to some.


I’m with you 100%, I despise the partisan hack attack tactics. It’s much more honest to simply object because of how then lean on the issues, without vilifying the applicant or dredging up petty issues from their past.

A senator can vote no with integrity and not destroy the person in the hearings.

I’m glad to see Amy has a ‘well qualified’ rating from the ABA, at least for her Circuit position. I suspect they will re-vote on her for a SCOTUS nomination…

Just read an article on the Thomas nomination fiasco. I now wonder if they hit him so hard because Bush did not follow normal protocols in how Justices are selected for nomination.


I will ask the same question of you that I asked of another poster:

The question to Barret is not about her Catholicism, but about the prioritization the law of her religious as a judge. Her writings may give people perhaps also conservatives pause. For example:

… we believe that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty. This means that they can neither themselves sentence criminals to death nor enforce jury recommendations of death.

PS if your post was made in response to mine, hust before yours, please understand that Diane Feinstein is not the ™Dems.


And this isn’t even dredging up past issues. Feinstein’s is a full-on attack based on the judge’s religious faith.
How far the Democratic Party has come from President Kennedy.

Kennedy stated that, “contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.” He viewed the presidency as “a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president,” Kennedy argued, “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.”


That is simply untrue. See my post above yours.
The question really was whether or not Barrett holds the same perspective as Kennedy.


JFK wouldn’t recognize, nor be allowed into, the Democrat party today.


:roll_eyes: The party of his family members.


The current Republican Party wouldn’t be recognized by Reagan too much either.



I assume you mean President Kennedy here, not Justice Kennedy.

Here’s what she said:

When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

Effectively, Catholic dogma is a concern. She is speaking at least as much about Catholicism as she is the judge.
I promise you, the first time a Muslim who is a progressive is nominated, if someone says the same thing, the howling about bigotry will be deafening. And rightly so.
If Feinstein does not like her judicial philosophy, fine, but this is religious bigotry in its pure form.


No. The concern is about the potential prioritization of dogma, which in her case happens to be Catholic dogma, over the law.
That concern is not unreasonable in light of her writings, such as this:

… we believe that Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty. This means that they can neither themselves sentence criminals to death nor enforce jury recommendations of death.

Do you agree with this statement from Barrett?


I quoted what she said! You can try to spin it any way you want, but she said Catholic dogma is a concern.
The judge has also stated her legal loyalty to the constitution (unlike Ginsburg who has stated a preference for the South African constitution and Breyer who wants to look outside America for guidance in rulings).


I think quite a few judges won’t enforce the death penalty, independent of Catholic dogma. It’s explicitly now part of the Dem platform.

You proposed a bad litmus test.

  1. You gave a quote, that did not say what you Catholic dogma is a problem.
  2. You attack on Ginsburg is Fake.

And I see no response to my question about Barrett’s statement on capital punishment. Why not?


Litmus test? I proposed no litmus test.
I asked if @JonNC agreed with the statement.
i am happy to pose the same question to you.

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