In light of several ill-conceived news reports, more downright condescending commentary about her family expected on the horizon, and with her confirmation hearings on the horizon, too, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett set up something of a veiled challenge to those opposing her confirmation.
Maybe it was deliberate, or maybe it was unwitting, but the subtext of her formal nomination speech at the White House was: Don’t allow ideological differences and especially anger at procedures and the circumstances of her nomination lead to more of the partisan same.
Invoking her former boss, Antonin Scalia, as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose seat on the court she has been nominated to fill, Barrett said, “Justices Scalia and Ginsburg disagreed fiercely in print without rancor in person. Their ability to maintain a warm and rich friendship, despite their differences, even inspired an opera.” The challenge: “These two great Americans demonstrated that arguments, even about matters of great consequence, need not destroy affection.”
The senators are not Barrett’s colleagues. Perhaps that kind of affection is impossible or even undesirable considering the advise and consent process. If not for the same affection, the appeal was at least one for respect, something Democrats did not readily extend to Barrett at the 2017 confirmation hearing for her nomination to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Sen. Mazie Hirono was astounded by words Barrett wrote as a student, saying that as a Catholic, she would recuse herself from an order of execution if she were a trial judge presiding over such a case. Hirono’s treatment of that was disingenuous and uncharitable. “It was enough of a statement of what you believe the role of religion was that it certainly caught my attention,” she said, “because I thought that justice was supposed to be blind.” Justice is supposed to be blind — that’s part of the reason why a person with a strong moral objection to the death penalty would offer a recusal.
It was also at that hearing when, speaking to Barrett, ranking member Dianne Feinstein asked, “Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling?” She went on, insinuating that Barrett’s devotion to her faith governs her jurisprudence, and then made the perennial declaration, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” That is “the conclusion one draws” from reading Barrett’s speeches, Feinstein said.
The liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. doesn’t read Feinstein’s “dogma lives loudly” bit as bigoted but does agree it was a mistake. “Are liberals sometimes clueless about conservative believers? Sure,” he wrote in a recent column. “Beyond how weird that statement is, it had an illiberal sweep to it.” It had more than illiberal sweep — it was completely disrespectful and even stupid, considering Barrett pledged throughout the hearing not to twist the law to her personal convictions.
For Feinstein, Hirono, and others, the environment in 2017 was politically charged. They didn’t like Barrett’s views, they were pressured by partisanship to challenge her fiercely, and the result was that they disrespected her and embarrassed themselves. The current circumstances now make Barrett’s earlier hearing look like recess.
There’s a chance that Democrats learned something from the first Barrett hearing, though the religion line is probably even more tempting this year, considering the reporting on People of Praise and insinuations about Barrett’s secret allegiance. The renewed challenge for them during Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings will be whether they can treat her and her judicial philosophy seriously or whether they will employ the same disjointed and scornful strategy of 2017.
