Reading this one really triggered me. Maybe it’s because I went to the same high school as her (not same graduating year) and didn’t particularly enjoy my high school experience, or maybe it’s because her background eerily reads like something of a cult biography, or maybe it’s the hypocrisy of it all.
I felt the same way, but for different reasons. My mother was part of the PoP organization when I was a in middle and high school. It felt very cult-like to me, but then again, that’s just my opinion as a recovering catholic turned agnostic.
Thank you for including comments about her accomplishments and intellect. The subtitle is that "her faith and conservatism powered her way to the court", and maybe those things got the attention of then President's Trump's team, but her previous scholarship and service to other judges showed that she was qualified to sit on the court. To have a Supreme Court that reflects the American people, having a person of faith on the court is important. For a long time, we only had white men, now we have the intellect and voices of women and men who represent many backgrounds and races.
A founding principle of the United States is separation of church and state. People's religious beliefs should not influence their decisions as it relates to our secular laws, and thus while it is fine that someone on the Supreme Court be a person of faith, it should not be considered to be representing a demographic, as faith should be left at the door. She may be qualified academically to sit on the Supreme Court, but lying about her intentions as they relate to existing laws (like Roe) raises questions about her character. Further, as an originalist, she should be the first to respect the founders' desire to keep religion and law separate, and yet that seems to be the one intention they laid out that she doesn't adhere to.
I could not agree more. I find her ability to lie so boldly about her intentions to be a severe lack of integrity, and, as a practicing Christian, a lack of integrity is a huge red flag for me.
I was raised in a very conservative home in the Deep South, yet my father was forever preaching about the importance of the separation of church and state. “Religious views have no place in politics.”
I don’t care how intelligent she is or how perfectly prepared she is as a legal scholar. Brilliance does not equal trustworthiness. I see her as someone who will bend when necessary to get where she wants to go - which was to take her strict religious views to our highest court. Not cool. And I have no respect for her because of that.
Speaking as a religious person who understands how deep to the core of your being those beliefs can be, it really is one of those situations where if you cannot separate out those beliefs from the requirements of the job, then you should recuse yourself from that job. For all the flaws and grievous wrongs the Church has committed over the centuries, the core Christian theology as expressed in the Gospels by Jesus, Paul, et al., repeatedly emphasize that you cannot and should not impose your religious practices on those around you.
I'm certain (given her background) that Amy Coney Barrett believes abortion is morally wrong, and I know that many religious folks believe abortion is so morally wrong that it can never, ever be justified (or allowed to be sanctioned by the State), which leads back to the issue at hand: her knowing that she may be asked to rule on abortion and insisting that she would hew to established precedent over those deeply-held beliefs? That's not a very morally forthright action. Because she was really being asked if she could set aside her beliefs to rule impartially at her job, and she knew that...so was she just lying to herself too?
No way her extreme religious views don’t encapsulate every single decision she makes, except of course when she lied about Roe during nomination hearings, imagine that.
This deep dive into the rise of Barrett, is enlightening and with this knowledge of her steadfast commitment to “originalists” and Catholic devotion, her future voting record is apparent. However, when embracing and holding fast to originalists thought and religious beliefs, with strict adherence, does that not immediately discount the existence and rights of many people one is supposedly to defend? Therefore, does it not weaken the oath? Interesting. Thank you, Sharon, for deep dives and thought provoking articles.
I was struck by her saying "I wanted to be in a place where I felt like I would be developed and inspired as a whole person." I get that she was referring to her faith as being part of her whole person. But perhaps she would have learned more about the variety of people in this country, perhaps even had eye-opening experiences, if she'd allowed herself to be challenged that way.
This is also what she said about overturning Roe during her confirmation. I think making her out to be a liar is unfair. According to factchecker.org
Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade to be a “super precedent,” at least not according to her definition of it as “cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.”
“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”
I was wondering more about the current day originalists? Given that the Bible is treated the same way as they wish the Constitution. Also given the current trend in printing Bibles with the Constitution added.
This is very interesting to me. I will have to learn more about this PoP group. I have a tendency to be very uncomfortable with this type of thing as I grew up in an evangelical Christian environment and it nearly took me down.
These deep dives are so interesting, and they've made me more curious about the 'origin stories' of other modern-day political figures. Justice Barrett is an accomplished individual whose upbringing was different than mine in many ways but also similar in some ways (e.g., I was raised Catholic). I can appreciate the diversity of thought represented in the nine justices, even if I don't always share their perspectives. I recently read a profile of sorts about her on CNN (leans left rating) and found it interesting as well: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-liberal-last-best-hope/index.html.
The linked article was interesting. I still have issues with, what I see as, her lack of integrity (claiming her religious views would not interfere with her work on the court), but, as is often the case, there is much more to consider than what is right in front of us.
Still, politics and religion should not mix. Ever.
Separation of church and state - which is what made our brand of democracy so fresh back in the day - is eroding fast. I’d love to see how this was managed way back when almost everyone in govt and the courts were religious, devout and practicing. It feels like the more secular we become in the real world the more blurry and religious we’re getting in govt, schools and courts. I don’t get it.
Reading this one really triggered me. Maybe it’s because I went to the same high school as her (not same graduating year) and didn’t particularly enjoy my high school experience, or maybe it’s because her background eerily reads like something of a cult biography, or maybe it’s the hypocrisy of it all.
I felt the same way, but for different reasons. My mother was part of the PoP organization when I was a in middle and high school. It felt very cult-like to me, but then again, that’s just my opinion as a recovering catholic turned agnostic.
The first thing that occurred to me is:
Thou shalt not lie.
Barrett reiterated that if she had an opportunity to rule on Roe, “I would faithfully apply all Supreme Court precedent.”
Thank you for including comments about her accomplishments and intellect. The subtitle is that "her faith and conservatism powered her way to the court", and maybe those things got the attention of then President's Trump's team, but her previous scholarship and service to other judges showed that she was qualified to sit on the court. To have a Supreme Court that reflects the American people, having a person of faith on the court is important. For a long time, we only had white men, now we have the intellect and voices of women and men who represent many backgrounds and races.
A founding principle of the United States is separation of church and state. People's religious beliefs should not influence their decisions as it relates to our secular laws, and thus while it is fine that someone on the Supreme Court be a person of faith, it should not be considered to be representing a demographic, as faith should be left at the door. She may be qualified academically to sit on the Supreme Court, but lying about her intentions as they relate to existing laws (like Roe) raises questions about her character. Further, as an originalist, she should be the first to respect the founders' desire to keep religion and law separate, and yet that seems to be the one intention they laid out that she doesn't adhere to.
I could not agree more. I find her ability to lie so boldly about her intentions to be a severe lack of integrity, and, as a practicing Christian, a lack of integrity is a huge red flag for me.
I was raised in a very conservative home in the Deep South, yet my father was forever preaching about the importance of the separation of church and state. “Religious views have no place in politics.”
I don’t care how intelligent she is or how perfectly prepared she is as a legal scholar. Brilliance does not equal trustworthiness. I see her as someone who will bend when necessary to get where she wants to go - which was to take her strict religious views to our highest court. Not cool. And I have no respect for her because of that.
Speaking as a religious person who understands how deep to the core of your being those beliefs can be, it really is one of those situations where if you cannot separate out those beliefs from the requirements of the job, then you should recuse yourself from that job. For all the flaws and grievous wrongs the Church has committed over the centuries, the core Christian theology as expressed in the Gospels by Jesus, Paul, et al., repeatedly emphasize that you cannot and should not impose your religious practices on those around you.
I'm certain (given her background) that Amy Coney Barrett believes abortion is morally wrong, and I know that many religious folks believe abortion is so morally wrong that it can never, ever be justified (or allowed to be sanctioned by the State), which leads back to the issue at hand: her knowing that she may be asked to rule on abortion and insisting that she would hew to established precedent over those deeply-held beliefs? That's not a very morally forthright action. Because she was really being asked if she could set aside her beliefs to rule impartially at her job, and she knew that...so was she just lying to herself too?
Well said, Ashley!
No way her extreme religious views don’t encapsulate every single decision she makes, except of course when she lied about Roe during nomination hearings, imagine that.
People of Praise appears cultish…
It reminds me of Scientology.
This deep dive into the rise of Barrett, is enlightening and with this knowledge of her steadfast commitment to “originalists” and Catholic devotion, her future voting record is apparent. However, when embracing and holding fast to originalists thought and religious beliefs, with strict adherence, does that not immediately discount the existence and rights of many people one is supposedly to defend? Therefore, does it not weaken the oath? Interesting. Thank you, Sharon, for deep dives and thought provoking articles.
I was struck by her saying "I wanted to be in a place where I felt like I would be developed and inspired as a whole person." I get that she was referring to her faith as being part of her whole person. But perhaps she would have learned more about the variety of people in this country, perhaps even had eye-opening experiences, if she'd allowed herself to be challenged that way.
Well Catholics don’t believe in the death penalty and she voted along with her fellow conservative justices to let an innocent man die on death row.
Woah. That’s fascinating.
Love these deep dives! The background of her helps understand a little more about her. Thank you.
She appears to be well established but I feel she is hurting woman’s rights and that I struggle.
This is also what she said about overturning Roe during her confirmation. I think making her out to be a liar is unfair. According to factchecker.org
Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade to be a “super precedent,” at least not according to her definition of it as “cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.”
“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”
The whole article is interesting, if anyone wants further context - it covers comments made by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett (and how even some Republican senators were shocked and felt they had been misled in the confirmation process). In hindsight, the justices were all speaking very carefully: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/
It would be interesting to know if the originalists of the Constitution are also very religious?
The writers of the Constitution were not particularly religious - this piece (from a Utah news channel and thus with a bit of LDS perspective thrown in) is an interesting look at how we revere the Constitution and Founding Fathers: https://www.ksl.com/article/11477410/founding-fathers-authors-of-us-constitution-misunderstood
I was wondering more about the current day originalists? Given that the Bible is treated the same way as they wish the Constitution. Also given the current trend in printing Bibles with the Constitution added.
This is very interesting to me. I will have to learn more about this PoP group. I have a tendency to be very uncomfortable with this type of thing as I grew up in an evangelical Christian environment and it nearly took me down.
These deep dives are so interesting, and they've made me more curious about the 'origin stories' of other modern-day political figures. Justice Barrett is an accomplished individual whose upbringing was different than mine in many ways but also similar in some ways (e.g., I was raised Catholic). I can appreciate the diversity of thought represented in the nine justices, even if I don't always share their perspectives. I recently read a profile of sorts about her on CNN (leans left rating) and found it interesting as well: https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-liberal-last-best-hope/index.html.
The linked article was interesting. I still have issues with, what I see as, her lack of integrity (claiming her religious views would not interfere with her work on the court), but, as is often the case, there is much more to consider than what is right in front of us.
Still, politics and religion should not mix. Ever.
Separation of church and state - which is what made our brand of democracy so fresh back in the day - is eroding fast. I’d love to see how this was managed way back when almost everyone in govt and the courts were religious, devout and practicing. It feels like the more secular we become in the real world the more blurry and religious we’re getting in govt, schools and courts. I don’t get it.