The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
Judge Amy Coney Barrett is on track to be confirmed as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. Secularists question whether she is fit for the job. Will her deep devotion to the dictates of her church take a secondary position to reason, science and experience when she decides cases?
That issue was never discussed or even brought up at the Judiciary Committee hearings. Religion was totally off limits. That was wrong.
How faith might influence her decision-making on cases before her remains a mystery. And that may be problematic.
For example, Catholics are instructed to consider homosexual activity as sinful; abortion as murder; and climate change as unimportant and irrelevant because only God can control the climate.
Will she consider her God’s dictates on issues like homosexual activity, abortion and climate change irrelevant and immaterial? Will she distance herself from church dogma when deciding cases? Is she capable of thinking with an open mind on these matters? This was important to know.
We know she is against LGBTQ and abortion rights and thinks man-made climate change is debatable (it’s not). Are these solely faith-based positions or does she have non-religious objections? If so, what are they? We need to know.
To be clear, secularists are not concerned with mainstream religionists whose beliefs do not dominate their thinking and their lives in the way they do with fundamentalists. This is also not a statement on how people should live their lives. It is rather a focused and necessary question as to whether the ultra-orthodox of any religion can properly function as judges in a multicultural society under a secular Constitution. It is for them to assure us they can!
Judge Barrett has been a devoutly religious person since childhood. It is reasonable to conclude that her thought processes and worldviews have been informed by this particular faith.
Specifically, all her formative education was from parochial institutions. She was also a member of a fundamentalist Christian group called the People of Praise. These associations evidently shaped her outlook and goals for her chosen profession.
Indeed, in an address to Law School graduates at Notre Dame University in 2006 she said that a law career was “but a means to an end … and that end is building the kingdom of God.” She continued, “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 will be a different kind of lawyer.”
Is she saying that her primary responsibility on SCOTUS will be to serve her God rather than the Constitution and the people it serves? Seems like a blatant conflict of interest here. Can she be impartial on the bench? This loyalty issue was never addressed at the hearings.
The senators had the duty to question whether she possessed the necessary tools of critical thinking, reason and rationality to differentiate between scientific, historic and religious truths. Could she foresee inevitable conflicts between her commitment to her faith and to her oath to the Constitution — and, if so, how would she reconcile them? Could she specify under what circumstances she would recuse herself in a case?
Amy Barrett has every right to believe whatever she wants. Additionally, the U.S. Constitution rightly prohibits any religious test for holding federal office.
In her 2017 appellate judgeship hearings, she said her beliefs would not influence the discharge of her duties as a judge. That assertion was speculative and required exploration at the hearing. Probing that claim would not have “attacked her religion” and would certainly not have violated her First Amendment rights.
Judge Barrett will likely be confirmed without having her ultimate goal—“building the kingdom of God”— ever being challenged. That should concern everyone.
