Judge Amy Coney Barrett On Her Intellect, Not Her Faith

Below is my column on the fierce attacks that have mounted against Judge Amy Coney Barrett, including articles suggesting that her conservative Catholic views and support for a charismatic group makes her a virtual cult member. The announcement of the new nominee will come today and Barrett has been viewed as a frontrunner. The religious intolerance unleashed by her likely nomination has continued to grow. Last night, “Real Time” host Bill Mayer came unglued with a vulgar attack on Barrett that even brought in Trump’s alleged affair with Stormy Daniels: “We’ll be saying this name a lot I’m sure because she’s a f—ing nut. . . ‘m sorry, but Amy [Coney] Barrett, Catholic — really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic — like speaking in tongues. Like she doesn’t believe in condoms, which is what she has in common with Trump because he doesn’t either. I remember that from Stormy Daniels.” Imagine if a conservative commentator responded to President Obama’s nomination of Kagan or Sotomayor by referring to sex with a stripper or referring to Kagan a “really, really Jewish.” These continuing attacks do not bode well for the confirmation fight ahead — regardless of the nominee.  To paraphrase Sen. Feinstein, “[Religious prejudice] lives loudly within you.”

Here is the column:

The image was striking and unsettling with a line of women in red hoods under a Newsweek headline that read, “How Charismatic Catholic Groups Like Amy Coney Barrett’s People of Praise Inspired The Handmaid’s Tale.” Writer Lauren Hough responded immediately by declaring that Barrett, a potential Supreme Court nominee, belongs to a “f—–g cult,” and others labeled Barrett as some type of judicial Serena Joy, a character on the show who imposes virtual slavery on fellow women.

Few Supreme Court nominees, let alone a still unnamed nominee, have been labeled as threatening to reduce all women to handmaiden birthing machines in a theocratic hellscape. Of course, the extraordinary career of Barrett should be a celebration of feminism. She graduated at the top of her law class, became a national thought leader, and ascended to one of the highest courts in the nation. She did that in her career while raising seven children, including two children adopted from Haiti.

The Newsweek story happens to be untrue. The outlet ran a correction that author Margaret Atwood “never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work.” The only connection was that a clip that referenced the People of Praise was found in her home. Newsweek said it “regrets the error” but did not retract the story.

Imagine if Newsweek published a picture of the Taliban with that type of picture for a Muslim nominee. But Barrett is a devout Catholic, and some liberals have found a certain release in voicing raw intolerance for certain groups. Recently, many of us criticized statements attributed to Attorney General William Barr seeking out the use of sedition laws against rioters. However, instead of raising constitutional objections, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe raised the Catholic faith of Barr, writing, “It’s way beyond monarchical. It’s paranoid and dictatorial. Opus Dei, anyone?”

It did not matter that Barr is not a follower of the conservative Opus Dei movement. Tribe still portrayed him in the sinister light of a conservative Catholic. It is like someone disagreeing with Alan Dershowitz and noting that he is Jewish. In reality, however, the religious intolerance of Tribe is matched only by his religious ignorance. Opus Dei is not a gateway faith to monarchy and has nothing to do with such ideas and policies.

The Catholic faith of Barrett has been used to argue against her. During her appellate court confirmation hearing, Dianne Feinstein, who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cited her Catholic beliefs as the reason “many of us on this side have a very uncomfortable feeling” and “the conclusion one draws is the dogma lives loudly within you. That is of concern.” Feinstein was referring to the writings of Barrett on her Catholic faith and the defense of morality in the law.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was religious. She said, “I am a judge, born, raised, and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice, for peace, and for enlightenment runs through the entirety of Jewish history and Jewish tradition.” She is the only justice to have a mezuzah affixed to her office door, and reportedly had the Jewish injunction “tzedek tirdof, or “justice shall you pursue,” woven into one of her jabots, or collars, worn on her Supreme Court robes. She studied and attended conferences on Jewish religious law. She insisted traditional certificates reading “the year of our Lord” be changed as unacceptable for Jewish lawyers. She was right, but her references to faith did not make her a religious zealot.

Justice William Brennan was a devout Catholic who had faced religious prejudice in his career and his confirmation. He would become one of the greatest voices against establishment power in the history of the Supreme Court, barring any form of religious favoritism. At his confirmation hearing in 1957, however, Brennan was forced to assure the Senate that he would keep his Catholic faith in check. Like Barrett, senators raised discomfort with his reference to his beliefs in guiding his legal career.

Brennan reaffirmed the role of human affairs as “the superintending care and control of the great governor of the universe.” Likewise, Barrett has been attacked for stating that a “legal career is but a means to an end” and “that end is building the kingdom of God.” However, she went on to tie the statement to being a righteous person. “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.”

Religious prejudice is not confined to Congress. The Supreme Court itself has struggled with religious prejudice. Justice James McReynolds, one of the most loathsome creatures to ever serve, was a virulent sexist, racist, and antisemite. He despised the addition of the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis, today considered one of the greatest justices. When Benjamin Cardozo was later considered, McReynolds wrote to President Hoover demanding that he not “afflict the Supreme Court with another Jew.”

Barrett, like Ginsburg, can believe deeply in the teachings of her faith and even support religious legal dogma in her private life without advocating orthodoxy from the bench. Further, many believe morality is relevant to the law. For the record, I have written and litigated in opposition to law based on morality. Barrett is an intellectual who has written on morality and the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch also has written on this issue.

Even as someone who is fervently secular in my views, I prefer someone who has thought deeply over these issues even when they have reached opposing conclusions. Nominations have often favored jurists who never uttered an interesting thought in their careers. The Supreme Court should be a place for those, such as Ginsburg, who rise to it with well articulated jurisprudence. While both Harvard professor Noah Feldman and I testified on opposing sides in the impeachment of President Trump, we have both praised Barrett for her intellect and writings in her legal career.

Barrett has lived and thought boldly. She is not another nominee with an empty portfolio that avoided controversial ideas or clients. It is the real “Handmaid’s Tale” for nominees who are told, “All you have to do is keep your mouth shut and look stupid. It should not be that hard.” That would be hard for Barrett. She has something to say and is a true intellectual.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

421 thoughts on “Judge Amy Coney Barrett On Her Intellect, Not Her Faith”

  1. Typical Dim Anti-Catholic/anti-Christian rhetoric. For reasons only they know, northern Catholics ignore it and vote for their defamers. Must be the glorification of martyrdom. Personally, I prefer Jesus in the Temple versus Jesus on the cross.

  2. Uncle Joe Biden has some short list picks too:

    An angry hard core, man hating lesbian & a transvestite judge….The first question to ask during confirmation is what does “don’t choke the chicken” mean?

  3. Politically, it’s a brilliant move by Trump b/c all of the anti-Catholic rhetoric will turn off people of faith from all parties. Moreover, Pelois is supposedly Catholic so it will be fun to watch that trainwreck of contorted logic.

      1. It looks like one of the Anonymous creatures may have left the rat latrine and taken a singular name and alias.

        “Allan, what did CTHD say that’s dishonest?”

        Personal conclusions based on distorted data are not facts.

        1. CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, Allan won’t be able to back up his claims with links to things I’ve actually said.

          So far, that’s proving to be correct.

            1. No, dude, you haven’t linked to anything from CTHD about the Flynn case.

              Saying things like “Plenty was backed up by others” isn’t a link.

              1. “No, dude, you haven’t linked to anything from CTHD about the Flynn case.”

                That proves you weren’t listening at all. Go back and find my discussions with CTDHD on the Flynn case. She said that Flynn’s own words proved guilt regarding his initial conviction. She referred to his words in the FBI reports that did not exist. She refused to show them and kept repeating they were there. They were never found because they did not exist.

                Embarrassed, since then she has denied that, but one has to ask why were so many told to look at the FBI report?

                I can see you have no basis for any of your comments so I will assume the same in the future.

                1. Allan wrote, Go back and find my discussions with CTDHD on the Flynn case.

                  Find them yourself.

                  Allan wrote, She said that Flynn’s own words proved guilt regarding his initial conviction. She referred to his words in the FBI reports that did not exist. She refused to show them and kept repeating they were there. They were never found because they did not exist.

                  So find them and link to the comments where CTHD did this.

                  1. There is another person on the blog always sending other people to look for things because he is a bit lazy. That person is PaintChips. Don’t be another PaintChips. He doesn’t need another name and icon. Search for yourself.

                  2. Steve,
                    Allan can’t back up his claims with links to things I’ve actually said, and now he’s trying to put the burden on you to substantiate *his* claim. But he’s the one with the burden of proof for *his* claim, not you.
                    I hope you see now that it’s a waste of time.

                    1. I did back up those statements at the time. You never admitted you were wrong and proved you were not committed to honest discussion. You had plenty of time to correct the record but you couldn’t.

                    2. You’e the puppet, Allan.
                      Everyone but you can see how easily you’re manipulated by the puppeteers.

                    3. Anonymous, you keep saying all sorts of things but can’t get anything right. It seems you aren’t good for much of anything…well maybe I should say almost anything. You probably fit in a place few people are willing to go.

                    4. What I said makes sense. You are just picking up garbage from where ever you were last and bring it to the blog.

      2. Steve, don’t waste your time. Allan won’t be able to back up his claims with links to things I’ve actually said.

        Re: Powell’s newest claims, here’s a good discussion that actually gets into the evidence itself and why Powell’s arguments are full of holes: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/09/25/sidney-powell-accuses-william-barnett-of-outrageous-deliberate-misconduct-and-kenneth-kohl-hides-evidence-that-brandon-van-grack-did-not/

        Either way, this will be resolved in court. I look forward to hearing Sullivan’s questions and the DOJ’s responses at the hearing this week.

        1. Plenty was backed up by others and as I have said in the past if one wants to look at a solid critique of CTDHD’s garbage one need not look at my discussions. One can look at the discussions between CTDHD and Young in the past. His words are quite clear.

        2. CTDHD likes to use other people’s views so she doesn’t have to defend them. Frequently the views presented are tangential. I will let Sydney Powell speak for herself and the CTDHD who acts like an expert can dispel what Powell actually said in context.

  4. Trump has to choose between pandering to the Cubans and some fringe Latinos and restating himself with the Catholics. The Catholics is damage control. Evangelicals are so off the beam that they would vote for Trump merely because it is a vote against the left, regardless of what a disgusting sinner he is. Catholics include, however, a broader spectrum of religious ideology. There are plenty of Catholics that lean right on all those issues of contention: abortion, gay sex marriage, etc.; but also see Trump as the disgrace, the shame, the deceiver, the evil that he is. Unfortunately there are enough Catholic fence sitters that will appreciate the nomination and vote to give Trump another chance. The Cubans are already so mindlessly right wing Trump has their vote anyway and doesn’t need to pander to them by picking a Cuban for the court. The bottom line is regardless of how someone attempts to appear without bias, everyone is biased to some degree. Those that are religious are, perhaps, subject to a bias more so than those without. Regardless of the legal mumbo jumbo when god is brought into it, religion is brought into it. Religion is, by its very existence and claim to be: the ‘one true path’, ‘the chosen’, ‘the only’, potentially divisive and prone to bias. We will have to see. What is a fact is that the Supreme Court has been damaged by now representing 6-3 the minority of Americans. If the Supreme Court is to be a representation of the people it should be 5-4 liberal to conservative. The problem lies in the Court, not the judges. Time to revisit how things are structured.

    1. “If the Supreme Court is to be a representation of the people it should be 5-4 liberal to conservative. ”

      Maybe that is how things work in Canada but in the US the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the Constitution not partisan beliefs.

      1. The Constitution, by its very nature, is open to interpretation. Otherwise, there would be no amendments or Supreme Court decisions. Since the Greeks, constitutions have been employed to offset the political flavor of the time and provide some anchor to higher ideals. However, the US Constitution, like all constitutions, is to varying degrees ambiguous. Read opposing justices takes on most issues as reflected in or contrasted against the Constitution and you will notice some to complete polarity. The Constitution is a man made document and therefore is alive. It is always in need of interpretation. Some justices, like Scalia, took it to be dead or not open to being seen in the light of today. Some took it to be alive. The justices are biased in their personal opinions. That has always been reflected in debate. There are only two political parties in the US. Justices are either Democrat or Republican. The Constitution and the law can be argued in either direction. The result is that regardless of what anyone says partisan beliefs exist. Partisan beliefs place the justices on the court. The Supreme Court in the US is an extension of political legislative power. The perversion that is now upon us is that the conservative population of the US, well less than half, now has a majority legislative leaning in the Supreme Court regardless of which party is dominant in the Congress, Senate, White House. A 4-4 with a 1 vote swing would be ideal. A 5-4 liberal to conservative would honestly reflect the people. What Trump and the Republicans have given us is somewhat like what happens in those sh(*$&%e countries or banana republics. A minority ruling a majority with the final say. Cromwell took England to war over that.

        1. “The Constitution, by its very nature, is open to interpretation. ”

          Yes, and that is a reason behind the varying views, but it is also a reason for the amendment process and acts of Congress. The Supreme Court acts as an anchor that some wish to pull up letting the nation drift with the tides. Sudden changes back and for are not a good idea. First think and then act, but it appears that advice has been reversed.

          You wish to make the Supreme Court political and respond to the political parties. It seems you are envisioning a parliamentary system rather than a Supreme Court that is only supposed to look at compliance with the Constitution

  5. “US Attorney’s Office Says Small Number Of Mail-In Military Ballots Cast For President Trump Discarded In Luzerne County”

    It appears the left is ready to cheat and steal the election. They will not get away with it.

  6. The fear is that judges like her will impose their faith on the rest of us, and it is completely valid to question her about that. So far I have seen nothing in the modern GOP that would indicate that they have a problem imposing their religious view on the county, and we have strong evidence that they will. They openly want to impose their belief that life begins at conception (a 100% religious position) in order to ban abortion (and even some birth control) for everyone. The risk of having religious justices put their religion into our laws is real and must be opposed vigorously.

    1. Your paranoia, and those of others like you on the Left, is irrelevant to the confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett.

  7. THE LEFT NUTS, DEM’s are all NUTS. They are about to lose another seat on the Supreme Court and they are going crazy, insane, even some of these posts are from unglued Left/DEM NUTS.

    Yes, Amy will be appointed and there is nothing the DEM’s can do but go Crazy. Schumer/Pelosi are powerless.

  8. “Imagine if a conservative commentator responded to President Obama’s nomination of Kagan or Sotomayor by referring to sex with a stripper”

    Unlike Trump, Obama didn’t cheat on his wife with a p*rn star and then break campaign finance laws by arranging for his lawyer to pay hush money to both her and a Playboy model, and then try to cover up his debt to his lawyer on his financial disclosure form.

    That said, Coney Barrett’s religious beliefs are not themselves a problem. Both Biden and Pelosi are also Catholic. Lots of judges, members of Congress, etc., are religious, and it’s not a problem as long as they’re also committed to separation of church and state.

    1. “Unlike Trump, Obama didn’t cheat on his wife…”

      That is probably correct or at least correct if we are only talking about women. But who cares. We elect presidents to serve the nation. Obama failed. Trump succeeded.

      Obama doesn’t have to pay anyone. He has others do it for him and he has the MSM to protect his reputation. However, in the end when one looks at the raw data Obama was a failure.

      Pure ad hominem attacks by this poster in her attempt to define what is or isn’t appropriate behavior and substitute that for accomplishments in office. Obama failed.

      1. That is probably correct or at least correct if we are only talking about women.

        He’s been married for 28 years and fathered two children. His known paramours from the period prior to his meeting Mooch in 1989 are all female. He has no known hobbies or interests which correlate with male homosexuality. The only aspect of his life which does is paternal absence.

        1. DSS, significant claims have been made in this regard (homosexuality and also drug use). I personally don’t believe they matter but since others like CTDHD think claims matter whether true or not I wanted to bring this claim to her attention.

          I thank you for the information and would thank you more if you could dispel this type of claim made against Obama. Do I believe the claim? I don’t care, but since it is out there I would like to hear proof the claim is not truthful.

          1. I thank you for the information and would thank you more if you could dispel this type of claim made against Obama. Do I believe the claim?

            The evidence for the ‘claim’ is a photograph of him sitting on a couch with a friend (a student from Pakistan). The photograph is unremarkable bar that the two are sitting slightly closer than would ordinarily have been the case for two young men ca. 1982. (Pillows and other items on the couch explain why he isn’t seated farther away). Evidently there was some acquaintance of theirs at Columbia who mistook them for a couple. Mistaken identity is not unusual.

            Again, at any one time, a grand total of 2.8% of the population over 15 is involved to some degree in the gay subculture. (You have that datum from Edward O. Laumann and his staff). There’s another bloc of people who pass in and out of that subculture, so the share who have some history of that over their lifetime is larger but still single-digits. The burden of proof in any case is on people who make claims, but especially so in re contentions about homosexuality. We live in stupid times and it’s common and perhaps modal for people to insist that once some claim is made that it’s assumed to be correct unless disproven. We ought to not be stupid.

            There is nothing about the man’s life that suggests homosexuality. He didn’t get around much, but that’s perfectly normal; most men of his vintage don’t have a long list of women from their past.

    2. Unlike Trump, Obama didn’t cheat on his wife

      Mitt Romney, George W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater didn’t cheat on their wives, either. Got them no points with Democratic constituencies. (George Bush the Elder and Dwight Eisenhower have had accusations lobbed against them which liberals pretend are established facts. No compelling reason to believe they cheated on their wives either). The prominent Republican with the most robust constituency in the media was John McCain, whose history in this regard is rather more embarrassing than Trump’s. Of course, the Kennedy cargo cult keeps chugging along, Lyndon Johnson remains admired by a certain sort of historian, and Adlai Stevenson will never get bad press in a PBS documentary.

      1. Turley only compared Trump and Obama.

        McCain cheated on his first wife, having an affair with the woman who would become his second wife.
        Trump cheated on his first wife, having affairs with multiple women, including the woman who would become his second wife. I wouldn’t be surprised if he cheated on his second wife. Trump also cheated on his third wife with multiple women.

        And you’re silent about Trump having broken the law in an attempt to cover up his cheating during the 2016 campaign.

        But you think McCain’s “history in this regard is rather more embarrassing than Trump’s”?!? LOL.

        1. “Committ” cheats on their spouse, children, family, friends, neighbors, society at large and decimates truth, objectivity, rational discourse and civility by trolling these forums 25/8 and thereby being an ogre.

          Sad society we have but there you have it

          Ditto for Allan, George, Kurtz, Bythebook, Issac, US of Bug and on and on and on

        2. “And you’re silent about Trump having broken the law in an attempt to cover up his cheating during the 2016 campaign.”

          Your conclusions are not facts unless you want to accept as fact Obama as a homosexual drug user who dealt with criminals.

          I won’t deal presently with the recent releases implicating Obama in a sordid attempt to destroy his successor. They are all coming out now. The only question is whether or not the perpetrators will go to jail.

    3. If you’re referring to the 1st Amendment, you might notice that it’s protecting religion from the gov’t, not the other way around.

      1. Actually, Lorenzo, the separation of church and state doctrine is bidirectional (in the sense of not allowing the government to preference any religion, or to preference religion over non-religion). It is not limited to the First Amendment; for example, Article Six states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” and there have been multiple relevant SCOTUS rulings.

        1. “not allowing the government to preference any religion,”

          Be more accurate. “not allowing the” Federal “government”.

        2. the main idea is that the gov’t isn’t supposed to interfere with religion, but lots/most people think it means that religion shouldn’t have any influence on the gov’t.

    4. “Obama didn’t cheat on his wife with a p*rn star”

      You have absolutely no idea whether or not Obama has ever cheated on his wife.

      Barry is slicker than Owl sh*t. So for all you know, he’s done it many times.

      The very fact that you’re so naive as to make that assumption, says it all about you. You live in a dream world of your own making.

  9. The Handmaid’s Tale is a story of deposing a sitting President and changing America into a military dictatorship.

    Isn’t that pretty much what the left has been attempting to do since Nov 3 2017?The left had its own version and we now know based on FBI documents and others that our American Republic’s DOJ and IC were weaponized by the Obama Biden administration to illegally hamper a President with the ultimate goal of his removal.

    To any lesser President the left may have been successful but Trump despite being nearly alone prevailed and made America greater.

    Trump 2020

      1. “I don’t know”

        InJustice you should have stopped after those three words because so far on the blog you have demonstrated you don’t know much of anything.

        Do you deny the FBI reports? To that you would reply: ‘Uh, Uh, Duh, What is the FBI?’

        1. Allan, you should have stopped after “I don’t know” because so far on the blog you have demonstrated you don’t know much of anything.

              1. OK Anonymous the Stupid, I’ll get to the meat of the discussion.

                “Do you deny the FBI reports? To that you would reply: ‘Uh, Uh, Duh, What is the FBI?’”

                You can’t justify the discussion above and prefer to act Stupid.

                1. OK Allan the Stupid, I’ll get to the meat of the discussion: you belittle lots of people here, and I repeat it back to you to show who you are. Your comments show that you prefer to act Stupid.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, you keep proving that have nothing in that head of yours. I made legitimate comments and you have brought back things from your rat latrine.

    1. Allan wrote, a story of deposing a sitting President and changing America into a military dictatorship. Isn’t that pretty much what the left has been attempting to do since Nov 3 2017?

      No.

          1. If the left gained power during the Trump administration through their lies and deceit they would have had control over the military. We saw what the FBI and DOJ did under the Obama Administration. Take note of the subject matter Amy Barrett. What is her relationship to the Handmaid’s tale

                    1. When you stop belittling people, Allan the Stupid, I’ll discuss the issue at hand. But as long as you continue to belittle people, I’m going to repeat your trash back to you, to show that you like acting Stupid.

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid, you have never said anything worthwhile so don’t give me any of that cr-p. However, you were able to create a phony excuse as to why you act so Stupid. That is an improvement.

      1. Issac. You have things backward. You think failure is success and success is failure. Any time you wish to deal with the raw data we can do a comparison.

        Did you read the FBI reports and the transcripts. One of the funnier things that was released was that a couple of agents bought insurance because they recognized that what was being done was wrong and they wanted to protect themselves.

    2. They started earlier – midway through 2016. Not only have done everything they accuse Trump of doing, but much, much more.

  10. Republicans blocked Obama’s 100 federal judge picks and a somewhat conservative, Merrick Garland, U.S. Supreme Court pick then Trump rammed through his picks. It’s just a carnival game to many Americans paying attention, Democrats got robbed last time. No way to reconcile that fact.

    1. We all saw how Democrats treated Bork, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. We saw how Durbin said Miguel Estrada’s nomination had to be defeated in part because he is Hispanic. We saw how Democrats left him and over 30 other GWB judicial nominees dangle n committee, sometimes for almost two YEARS, without a vote. We saw Senator Obama vote to filibuster Alito.

      Then you whine like sissies when Republicans use the same tactics against Obama’s nominees.

      It’s always and only ever about power for Democrats. If she were not devoutly Catholic, your side would invent some other excuse to try to destroy her and put her family through hell.

      It’s what Democrats do. We have 30 years of evidence.

  11. Argh, Professor Turley, you are guilty of some of the same things of which you accuse others. From your piece: “Justice James McReynolds, one of the most loathsome creatures to ever serve, was a virulent sexist, racist, and antisemite.” Name calling, and hurling negative adjectives are never useful, and perhaps should be left to those who exist on the far edge of each party.

  12. (music)
    Give me that old time religion..give me that old time religion.
    Give me that old time religion!
    It’s good enough for me!

    It was good enough for Castro.
    Etc

  13. Every time you think liberals have hit bottom and cannot sink any lower, they prove you wrong.

    Will take exception to your characterization of the justices. The only one who gave clear indication of having a life ordered by religion has been Antonin Scalia. Clarence Thomas is a professing Catholic who has had an ambivalent relationship with the Church. Brett Kavanaugh is certainly present at Mass, but in today’s Church, maybe 1/3 of the pewsitters make an annual confession. Samuel Alito’s family life looks like any other persons in the professional-managerial bourgeoisie. John Roberts’ wife gives some indication of being a serious Catholic. She’s not on the Court. Jews who are minimally observant amount to 30% of the total; adherents of Orthodoxy might clock in at around 8%. And the notion that Wm. Brennan was a serious Catholic is about the most obtuse thing you’ve ever said.

  14. My money is on Justice Barbara Lagoa. The daughter of Cuban exiles, the pandering, disgusting aholes in the senate voted, in November 2019 during the height of the impeachment, 85-15 to confirm. I want to see the Democrats attack the Latino daughter of Cuban exiles. Too young and inexperienced? Check the bio of Justice Elena Kagan.

  15. It’s not her “faith”. I don’t care what she believes or what label she chooses to wear . What it is about people like the nominee is that their faith is what everyone else must live by. She has no view or belief in a secular government or her own autonomy. She sees government as a fundamentalist tool. As a result, the rest of us are at risk as much from her fundamentalism as we are from any other. No man or woman knows the mind of god and those who say they do do not belong in government.

    1. You’re not at risk of anything.

      The rest of us have had public policies imposed on us by judicial ukase which have no basis in the federal constitution. You want you’re lousy public policies, you might try persuaded state legislatures to enact them

  16. I don’t see what you’re getting at, Jonathan. I take it as a compliment when my parishioners (or even my antagonists) call me “really really gnostic”.

    Why would the Judge be offended?

    She is really really catholic.

Leave a Reply