Amy Coney Barrett: A Catholic Constitutionalist (A Conservative Take)

On September 26, 2020, President Trump formally nominated Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States, in succession of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Like her colleague Clarence Thomas and her late boss Antonin Scalia, Barrett is described as an originalist and a textualist. This essentially means that she sticks to the original meaning of the Constitution when making rulings, so if a law or executive order like the one described above were passed, she would not hesitate to rule it unconstitutional.

There is a lot of controversy about Justice Barrett, specifically pertaining to her Catholic faith. Her hearings were a mess, coming from both sides; Republicans gave her some questions pertaining to the Court, but they mostly gave her questions that a high schooler can answer.

“Do you speak any foreign languages?” “Do you play any instruments?” (Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas)

“Why do judges wear robes?” (Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska)

“You’re a very accomplished jurist in your own right, is that fair to say?” (Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri)

The Democrats also didn’t ask her the right kinds of questions; instead, they attacked her from left and right, figuratively speaking. Senator Hirono (D-Hawaii) even had the audacity to ask if she had ever sexually assaulted anyone. Here’s the exact quote:

“Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”

This was, in effect, a flashback from the Brett Kavanaugh hearings early in Trump’s presidency. While asking this question may have been somewhat reasonable for the Kavanaugh hearings given the accusations brought against him, no claims of this sort appeared to get out there when Barrett was nominated, so it was a ridiculous idea to ask this question. This is not the only ridiculous question Barrett received in her hearings. Among them are also:

“You condemn white supremacy, correct?” (Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey)

“Have you seen the George Floyd video?... What impact did it have on you?... Where are we today when it comes to the issue of race?” (Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois)

“Brown v Board of Education, we know… the 14th Amendment prohibits states from segregating schools on the basis of race… is that precedent?” (Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota)

Barrett was also asked about climate change, the Affordable Care Act, and most notably Roe v Wade and whether she thought it was a proper ruling. The Catholic Church is very pro-life; it condemns abortion, birth control, and sterilization, all methods of preventing life from continuing (in the case of abortion) or even starting (birth control and sterilization).

Barrett answered questions about climate change, the ACA, and Roe v Wade essentially the same way. One quote from when she was asked about Roe v Wade is as follows:

“I can’t pre-commit or say, ‘Yes, I’m going in with some agenda,’ because I’m not.”

A given American citizen can distrust this statement as much as they want… that is not in question here. There has been a lot of talk about overturning Roe v Wade, which is the reason this was brought up in the hearings, and appointing another originalist justice could lead the way for such a thing to happen.

However, Barrett has made it clear that she will not rule with a bias in her Catholic faith. This is not to say that the originalist interpretation of the Constitution and principles in the Catholic faith are completely separate -- they do often coincide -- but it is to say that she will not make rulings because her faith tells her to do so; she will make rulings because she wants the law to be clear, which is the whole reason she is a justice to begin with.

By: Simon Carter