Amy Coney Barrett has been nominated by President Trump to replace the now deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The attacks have begun, and Barrett’s faith is under fire. She is a staunch Catholic, which the Democrats despise.
Amy Barrett is also a mother of seven children, of which two are adopted black children from Haiti. Of course, the political left disapproves of this, because that completely obliterates the narrative that conservatives are racist.
Please make no mistake, Amy Barrett will be on trial, not because of her past decisions as a judge. She will be on trial because of her faith.
According to the New York Post, Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein told Amy Barrett, “The dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have thought for, for years in this country.”
I am assuming that the Senator from California is referring to Roe v. Wade. It is no secret that conservatives have been fighting for decades to overturn Roe v. Wade.
To be dogmatic is to present principles that are based on fact and undeniably true. Check out the definition. Based on that definition, I see nothing wrong with being dogmatic if what someone says is undeniable. Feinstein, I am sure, meant that Barrett has been preachy and judgmental. Even if that is true, Feinstein is one to talk. Democrats have a long history of insulting and judging people. Just look at the last four years.
Faith on the Supreme Court
Faith is important to millions of Americans. Not only is faith important to many today, but it was also crucial to the vast majority of Americans during the founding of America, which is a very important detail to point out since Barrett’s faith has come under attack. It will absolutely be on trial when she goes before the Senate to be questioned and confirmed.
Let’s remember, faith was never intended to be a public expression, according to the founders of this great nation. And since we are talking about a potential Supreme Court Justice, it would behoove me to quote a former justice, the father of American jurisprudence, Joseph Story:
[I]t is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience.
Isn’t that interesting! Story, being a Christian himself, clearly believed that the government had a duty to foster and encourage Christianity among the citizens. So, when Senator Feinstein or anyone else of her political ideology says that faith or religion should not influence a judge’s decision on the court, remember what Justice Joseph Story said.
Democrats will also invoke separation of church and state as an excuse to reign assault down on Amy Barrett. But we already know that policy point has been debunked; see here for more info.
What does the Constitution say?
Democrats keep saying that the process is being rushed and that this is a violation of the Constitution. But is it? Article III of the U.S. Constitution consists of only three sections. None of the three sections mention a timeline by which nominees are to be confirmed as justices. That process is based on what is called precedence. Perhaps the Democrats should read the document they are elected to uphold.
Section II of Article III describes the function of the highest Court. You can if you want to read what the Constitution says about the Judicial branch.
A look at the Federalist Papers
Before I end, I want to turn to Alexander Hamilton, who authored Federalist #78, which says,
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution.”
All this fighting over the Supreme Court is a sad indicator that the highest Court has become far too powerful. The Supreme Court has become an activist branch of the government, which it was never meant to become. Until well into the 20th century, the Supreme Court met under the Capitol Building because it was intended to symbolize the idea the Court was to be under the supervision of the people’s elect.
Whatever attacks may be brought against Amy Barrett, the question about her faith playing a pivotal role in her decision making should be viewed illegitimate to anyone who knows and understands the original intent of our founders.