Kay C. James / October 10, 2020

Charting the Left’s Religious Bigotry Toward Amy Coney Barrett

When President Donald Trump announced that Judge Amy Coney Barrett was his nominee to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the religious bigotry of the far left exposed its ugly face.

When President Donald Trump announced that Judge Amy Coney Barrett was his nominee to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the religious bigotry of the far left exposed its ugly face. Left-wing pundits, politicians, and activists immediately questioned her ability to be an impartial justice because of her faith.

Of course, we’ve heard this tune before. It’s the same attack they used when Trump nominated her to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.

During her 2017 confirmation hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., infamously said about the judge’s Catholic faith, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Fast forward to this September. When asked if questioning Barrett’s faith was off limits in Senate confirmation hearings for her appointment to the Supreme Court, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said no, it wasn’t.

New York Times opinion writer Elizabeth Bruenig followed that up with a claim that “Judge Barrett’s nomination has merely renewed attention to a fundamental conflict, centuries underway, between Catholicism and the American ethos.”

Funny, I’ve been in government and public policy for almost 40 years, and the claim of a centuries-old conflict that America has with its Catholics is news to me. It’s also very insulting, and I’m not even Catholic.

While Barrett’s religion certainly informs her worldview and shapes her character, as a judge, she takes an oath that, while on the job, her fidelity must be first and foremost to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

The fact is, every conservative justice on the court would agree with that point. As an originalist and textualist, she believes that the words in our Constitution and in our laws must be interpreted according to how those words were understood at the time they were written, not reinterpreted according to her worldview.

Ironically, her critics hold the exact opposite view when it comes to leftist judges. They want judges to reject the written law and inject their own agendas to ensure that cases have the social and political outcomes they favor.

Many on the left are more than happy with judges who circumvent the democratic process and impose their views in ways that advance the leftist agenda.

However, Barrett rightly rejects that kind of behavior as contradictory to our system of constitutionally limited government. She has said that if a judge rewrites a law according to his or her personal views, then “it ceases to be the law that has democratic legitimacy.”

What if there were a case before her where her religious faith and her judicial responsibility conflicted and she felt she had to adhere to the higher calling of her faith?

Barrett addressed that issue during her 2017 confirmation: “I would recuse. I would never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.” She said it is “never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”

Unconstitutional religious tests for office are a direct attack on our cherished tradition of religious freedom. They are also a form of economic discrimination — denying people employment in government because of their religious affiliation.

In Barrett’s case, the attempt to deny confirmation based on her religious views seems to be the backup plan when senators can’t find anything substantially objectionable about her credentials.

This country’s protections for religious freedom prevent the kind of rampant religious bigotry we see in other nations — the social ostracizing of the religious, the denial of employment or education, and even the criminalization of religious practice.

Barrett and the conservative justices she will join on the court believe in the objective application of the law. You might not be able to tell that by the hysteria you hear from the left. But the fact is, originalist and textualist judges who objectively and fairly apply the law across the board are precisely the justices we need more of on the Supreme Court.

If liberal justices actually applied that same discipline, we wouldn’t see the near-constant partisan split in decisions coming out of the court that we do today.

And if more of our senators cared about justices deciding cases based on the Constitution and the law rather than whether they reached the outcomes they preferred, we would see a lot less rancor and invective — and perhaps even more bipartisanship — when a conservative nominee is named.

Religious bigotry has no place in the confirmation process, nor anywhere in government or public life. In fact, the Constitution explicitly states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

But then again, we’ve always known that those on the far left have never been big fans of the Constitution.

Republished from The Heritage Foundation.

Start a conversation using these share links:

Who We Are

The Patriot Post is a highly acclaimed weekday digest of news analysis, policy and opinion written from the heartland — as opposed to the MSM’s ubiquitous Beltway echo chambers — for grassroots leaders nationwide. More

What We Offer

On the Web

We provide solid conservative perspective on the most important issues, including analysis, opinion columns, headline summaries, memes, cartoons and much more.

Via Email

Choose our full-length Digest or our quick-reading Snapshot for a summary of important news. We also offer Cartoons & Memes on Monday and Alexander’s column on Wednesday.

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. Our mission and operation budgets are not financed by any political or special interest groups, and to protect our editorial integrity, we accept no advertising. We are sustained solely by you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!


“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington

The Patriot Post is protected speech, as enumerated in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with the endowed and unalienable Rights of All Mankind.

Copyright © 2021 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

The Patriot Post does not support Internet Explorer. We recommend installing the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, or Google Chrome.