Anyone serving in the U.S. Government has to abide by the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, but that is not the ardent belief of Trump’s nominee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The idea that the Constitution is secondary to a judge’s religious belief has been a growing threat for a decade or so, but now that threat is becoming reality as America lurches toward an evangelical theocracy. For far too long politicians have looked the other way as theocracy-minded evangelicals have infected the government hoping to spread their bastardized version of Christianity like a virulent plague.
At least now some members of the Senate realize the danger of a religious fanatic serving as an appeals court judge, but it is likely far too late to stop a serious threat to the rule of law by a Trump nominee who said judges have a duty to put their faith above the Constitution.
Amy Coney Barrett is a practicing conservative Catholic, and is an extraordinarily enthusiastic opponent of a woman’s right to choose. She has written extensively on the Catholic Church’s need to dismantle an American long-standing legal medical procedure adjudicated as constitutional in Roe v. Wade.
Barrett also does not subscribe to the idea of adhering to long-established legal precedents if they conflict with her religious belief that laws, or High Court rulings “were gross mistakes” because they are not founded on her Christian religion.
Barrett is a law professor at the Catholic Notre Dame University and except for serving as a “law clerk” for dead SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia and appellate Judge Laurence H. Silberman, she has not served as a judge; and she damn well never should for good reason.
According to a recent report from the Alliance for Justice (AFJ):
“As a judge, Barrett could be expected to put her personal beliefs ahead of the law. She wrote specifically about the duty of judges to put their faith above the law in an article entitled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” Among other things, she strongly criticized Justice William Brennan’s statement about faith, in which he said that he took an oath to uphold the law, and that “there isn’t any obligation of our faith superior” to that oath. In response, Barrett wrote: “We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty.” (author bold)
If that is Barrett’s position, and she has written extensively that it is what she believes, it automatically disqualifies her for any position in America’s judicial system. No judge, federal or otherwise, can blatantly disregard the only basis for law in the United States, the U.S. Constitution. Barrett claims the law of the land is secondary to a judge’s religious belief.
And, regarding Barrett’s nomination to a life-long position on a federal Circuit Court of Appeals, AFJ’s president Nan Aron said In a statement:
“Amy Coney Barrett is a judicial nominee the likes of which we have rarely seen: a person who believes and has stated that judges can and should put their personal beliefs ahead of the law and Constitution when carrying out their duties. Specifically, Barrett has written that judges should put their religious faith ahead of the law in certain cases. She also has written that judges should not have to abide by precedent if they disagree with how past cases were decided. These views are so contrary to our system of democracy and justice that, in our view, they clearly disqualify her for the federal bench.” (author bold)
That AJF report elicited concerns in the Senate leading Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch to ask about her “questionable record” while quoting directly from the AJF report. But Barrett, a self-admitted “conservative Catholic” did what is becoming natural for so-called “conservative Christian” adherents; she violated her own Christian bible’s Ninth Commandment and lied by denying the AJF’s accusations. She responded to Senator Hatch saying:
“That is not true. I totally reject and have rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome.”
Barrett’s assertion was quickly called what it was, a dirty lie. The legal director for Alliance for Justice, Daniel Goldberg, asserted that Barrett’s testimony is “a point-blank lie.” He said:
“Look at our report. It quotes Coney Barrett directly.”
California Senator Dianne Feinstein joined Senator Hatch in expressing her deep reservations about Barrett’s religious extremism. She noted:
“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”
Minnesota Senator Al Franken actually did the right thing and questioned Barrett’s “fitness to serve” when she claims a judge’s religious beliefs trump the U.S. Constitution. He also rightly chastised “the conservative Catholic’s close ties and communication with the anti-gay Christian hate group Alliance Defending Freedom.”
It isn’t immediately clear who in the Trump administration directed Trump to nominate Barrett as an Appellate Court judge, but it was almost certainly either Mike “preacher” Pence or Jeff “bible” Sessions. It may have even been the Christian hate group Alliance Defending Freedom; they all believe the Christian bible supersedes the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land and the idea of a conservative Catholic panting to overturn Roe on the federal bench almost certainly gave those impotent religious old men a 19-year-old’s erection.
Barrett has no right serving in any capacity as a judge. And no, her religion is not the issue. Nobody has any shit to give about what Psalms she sings, how she worships, who she prays to, or to which Christian denomination she subscribes. However, every American alive should shudder that Trump is nominating Christian extremists who fervently believe that judges have “a duty to put their faith above the law of the land;” because it is a direct line to an oppressive theocracy which is exactly what whoever nominated an Christian extremist like Barrett intended.