Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been nominated to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court justice. And she’s Catholic.
Catholics believe some crazy things. That the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” a Jewish virgin who then conceived the son of God, and that she was later assumed body and soul into Heaven. We believe that the death of her son was a sin offering, and that every Sunday we perpetuate that sacrifice by eating a wafer that has literally become his body.
You may call this a “jumble of medieval superstition.” You would not be the first. As a private citizen, you’re free to call it anything you want.
But if you’re a U.S. Senator, you may not call it a reason to disqualify a Supreme Court nominee.
The Constitution forbids any religious test for holding public office according to Article VI, Clause 3. “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
That means the federal government may not require a nominee to conform to a certain religion or refuse to confirm a nominee on account of her religious beliefs.
Yet, that’s what some Democratic senators are already doing when it comes to Barrett, even before she was nominated.
Judiciary Committee member Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, was asked recently whether Barrett’s Catholic faith was off limits. Hirono said bluntly: “No.”
Wrong answer, senator. You are bound to follow the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. You even swore an oath to do so. It says no religious test. That’s another way to say a nominee’s religion is “off limits.”
Barrett is a smart, experienced, respected jurist. She was confirmed as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal three years ago by a vote of 54-42. It was a bipartisan vote, with a handful of Democrats voting in favor.
She faced hostile Democratic questions and criticism then about her Catholic faith. The most memorable came from Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, who told Barrett at the hearing, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
As a Catholic woman, I remember that day well. Many of us were tuned into the hearing, and when Feinstein dropped this little bomb, gleeful texts and emails began to fly among my Catholic friends. Didn’t Feinstein know? The greatest compliment you can give a Catholic Christian is to tell her that she’s really Catholic? We talked about ordering t-shirts with “The Dogma Lives Loudly Within Me.” Somebody started selling coffee cups.
At the time, Barrett responded to Feinstein: “If you’re asking whether I take my Catholic faith seriously, I do, though I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.”
Judge Barrett has now been nominated for the Supreme Court, and it will not only be anti-constitutional for Democrats to question her Catholic beliefs, it will also be a waste of time. Because Barrett is a constitutionalist, which means her personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, are not relevant to her job as a judge or a justice.
There are two competing approaches to what Chief Justice William Rehnquist called “the very delicate responsibility of judicial review.” One is limited, where judges see their role as interpreting an instrument framed by the people in a detached and objective way. This is the vision of the founders, and why Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the “least dangerous branch.” Judges are meant to be umpires — they call balls and strikes but never pick up the bat to swing.
The other approach is expansive, when the Supreme Court is seen as the voice and conscience of contemporary society. In this view, justices are more akin to wise oracles who make solemn pronouncements about solutions to society’s problems. That’s why some observers, in the media and in the Democratic Party, slip so easily into the language of policy and politics when speaking of the court.
After Hirono said Barrett’s Catholicism was not off limits, she elaborated: “Why should we say you get a lifetime appointment so that you can reflect your ideological agenda in your decision making?”
You’re projecting, senator. No one on President Trump’s judicial list has a record of imposing personal policy preferences in their judicial decisions. Certainly not Barrett.
Judge Barrett is an excellent choice for the Supreme Court. Perhaps I’ll order that t-shirt now.
Cathy Ruse, JD is the senior fellow for Human Dignity at Family Research Council.
