Catholic Amy Coney Barrett Front-Runner as Trump Signals Supreme Court Nomination Plans


Yes, I was reading about this somewhere. Well, I pray for the best. Thanks for posting.


Reading the article it says she is part of a Charismatic community, so it appears she really is a dedicated Catholic who actively practices her faith, praying a rosary for her nomination might be a good idea.


Is she a solid pro-life person or another catholic like Justice Roberts.? What is her history?

1 Like

Yay!! She’s awesome!

Although I have to say that since the Republicans were not willing to confirm Pres. Obama’s to nomination of a Supreme Court justice in his last few months, it really doesn’t seem right to encourage Pres. Trump to nominate a Supreme Court justice in his last few months.

Or…is it being done this way because Pres. Obama was in his 2nd term, and therefore would no longer be the President under any circumstances when he was finished serving, while Pres. Trump is in his 1st term and will serve for 4 more years should he be elected. Make sense?

And I do think it’s appropriate for a 1st term President to nominate a Supreme Court justice, but I do not think it’s appropriate for the Senate to spend a lot of time on the hearings and interviews and all the other vetting that happens to a nominee for the Supreme Court. They need to be out there campaigning and listening to their constituents and hopefully making modifications in their stands on various issues in response to their constituents.

At any rate, R.I.P. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I did not agree with many of your opinions, but I admire your achievements and respect your intelligence and determination to serve your country.


Just research it, there is plenty on her on the web. I’ve had problems with this writer previously though, he’s not always the best informed imo.

The fact that Amy Barrett used “seamless garment” in one of her decisions is very scary. I think the Senate needs to get a clear picture of where she stands on this issue and if she is not a solid choice, it is time for another candidate.

I am fine with Senator Cotton, or Senator Cruz if the Senate cannot block their nomination, go for it.

There’s at least 2 other women candidates (and they were last time as well), one from Colorado, one from Georgia.

It mentions Amy, maybe she would be conservative.

Allison Eid is on the list, from Colorado, I thought she was okay from last time, I’d have to refresh the info. It also mentions a man’s name.

ALLISON JONES RUSHING, she clerked for Judge Clarence Thomas:

Diane Sykes.

Another one, Barbara Lagoa, Cuban American, Florida:

Another one who clerked for Clarence Thomas:


The list goes on, quite a few I guess. This twitter account discusses:

“Fill the seat”, you know, that’s the new slogan.

We really need to get this right. I was impressed by one who was from Georgia actually last time. She seemed real solid.

From account above, the 12 women on the list:

  1. Amy Coney Barrett
  2. Bridget Bade
  3. Allison Eid
  4. Britt Grant
  5. Barbara Lagoa
  6. Joan Larsen
  7. Martha Pacold
  8. Sarah Pitlyk
  9. Allison Jones Rushing
  10. Margaret Ryan
  11. Diane Sykes
  12. Kate Todd

These women may have clerked for Clarence Thomas but does anyone still trust them?

Sandra Day O’Connor was a Republican woman who had a few cases against abortion prior to her judgeship but she voted pro choice as a Supreme Court justice.

1 Like

If that is the issue, Senator Ted Cruz certainly has a proven track record but then, I think, could he vote for himself? That might be one less vote in the Senate.

Again, for about the third time, that one lady from Georgia seemed pretty solid, with a Southern upbringing, Wake Forest and Duke I believe that is Kate Todd on the list. Eid out of Colorado seemed fairly good too.

I pray she makes it onto the Court.


How about the best legal mind in the country?

When RBG was nominated, she was confirmed 96-3. Antonin Scalia was confirmed 97-0, Sandra Day O’Conner was 99-0.

If this is going to be done this close to the election, a widely accepted bipartisan choice would be appropriate. A legal mind. Not a political one.


Nominating and confirming a nomination are two different actions

1 Like

Barrett definitely gives me pause. Immigration is the other big hot button issue aside from abortion. Given her fealty to the current Pope, I have no confidence that she will rule in favor of any kind of immigration restrictions.

I don’t know enough about the other women nominees.

Those were less controversial times. Thomas was the only one to run into trouble at the time and his nomination process was an easy walk in the garden compared to what Kavanagh went through.

Best legal mind by whose standards? Name me someone who could get that many votes today. I’m definitely stumped.

1 Like

I can’t, but I haven’t been doing any research. One possible start is to not just take the judges the Federalist Society suggests.

I agree. You see, in those days a Judge Nominee was not so political. They looked for qualified personal.However, slowly it has become an ideological one. Why is it that President Trump nominating highly qualified judges to the Supreme Court be so divisive, other than politicians want ideology over qualifications. That is where we are today. I did not like it when Republicans did this to Democrats, but it is what it is.

There is good arguments to be made, that President Tump indeed needs to fill the seat immediately. And that argument is the Elections. Everyone expects a contested election. And the Supreme Court will be the deciding factor. That is the expectation. Could be true. Who knows.

I think you understand how important it is for Catholics to get the most pro-life judge on the court. It really is the main issue

. Gives me great pause. . . .

I am a Catholic. Have been for 60 years. In a spirit of charity I’m not going to flag your post, although I think you meant it as an insult.

I am frightened at the prospect of the Court leaning one way or the other for generations. I think that the legal theories of interpretation should be held in tension.

Sorry, I changed my post and cannot in good faith respond to this.

1 Like

What do you mean when you say that she “used” it? Do you mean that she thinks that the consistent life ethic as articulated by Catholic theologians is part of the law of the United States? That would indeed be “very scary”. Or do you mean that she thinks that a correct interpretation of the law would support the consistent life ethic? Or do you mean that she thinks that the law can be interpreted in light of the consistent life ethic? By coincidence, I have just been reading a judgment by Lord Justice Brooke in which he argues that, while Parliament has deviated from Judaeo-Christian ethics in some areas (e.g. abortion), in areas where Parliament has not thus deviated (e.g. the sanctity of life from birth until natural death), Judaeo-Christian ethics may be relevant to the interpretation of English common law and European human rights law.

I don’t understand. Why would there be a problem with a woman being a Supreme Court justice? Are women not suitable as members of the judiciary? Do you have an opinion about Lady Hale, the recently retired president of the UK Supreme Court? Would a man have been better in that role too?

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