SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Amy Coney Barrett (R), U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee for associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, speaks as U.S. President Donald Trump listens during an announcement ceremony at the White House on September 26, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images)
Amy Coney Barrett Is Not Qualified to Be a Supreme Court Justice
Barrett acknowledges she applies a "religious test" to every legal decision. Her legal philosophy should disqualify her.
Sep 30, 2020
Opposition to Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, has centered on his efforts to put her on the bench weeks before a Presidential election and her rightwing judicial positions. In three years since Trump appointed her a federal appeals court judge, Barrett has opposed reproductive freedom, gun regulation, immigrant rights, and efforts to combat discrimination. Ultimately disqualifying, however, are Barnett's own statements about how her religious views shape her legal philosophy and that her primary goal as a lawyer is "building the Kingdom of God," not defending the Constitution of the United States.
Since the Constitution forbids a "religious test," Amy Coney Barrett's membership in a Christian fundamentalist group is not a disqualification for office, however, her legal philosophy is.
Supreme Court Justices are required to take two oaths of office prior to taking their lifetime position on the court, the Judicial Oath and the Constitutional Oath. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, all judicial officers "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." It also says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Since passage of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, judicial appointees affirm that they "will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Since the Constitution forbids a "religious test," Amy Coney Barrett's membership in a Christian fundamentalist group is not a disqualification for office, however, her legal philosophy is. Barnett would be swearing to something she does not believe and will not do, which is a federal offense.
In 2017 Senate confirmation hearings, Barrett asserted "If you're asking whether I take my faith seriously and I'm a faithful Catholic -- I am, although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge." However, according to a 1998 journal article that Barrett co-authored, "(Catholic judges) are . . . obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters." In the same article, the authors quoted Justice William Brennan, who argued at his Senate confirmation hearing that in his position on the Supreme Court "what shall control me is the oath that I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and [I shall] so act upon the cases that come before me for decision that it is that oath and that alone which governs." Barrett and her co-author commented that "We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty".
In a 2006 commencement speech to graduates of Notre Dame Law School, Barrett went even further in spelling out the role of religion in her legal philosophy proclaiming "A legal career is but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God." Barrett also recommended that Catholic lawyers consult "God before making a choice" asking God, "In which situation can I best serve You? . . . we are a community engaged in the enterprise of legal education and scholarship, we are also a community engaged in the enterprise of bringing about the kingdom of God."
The United States Constitution says that judicial officers should not be subject to a religious test. The problem is that Amy Coney Barrett acknowledges she applies a "religious test" to every legal decision. Barrett has the absolute right to apply her "religious test" in her personal life and in her legal career, but not as a Supreme Court Justice and that is why her legal philosophy should disqualify her.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Alan Singer
Alan J. Singer is a historian and a professor of teaching, learning, and technology at Hofstra University.
Opposition to Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, has centered on his efforts to put her on the bench weeks before a Presidential election and her rightwing judicial positions. In three years since Trump appointed her a federal appeals court judge, Barrett has opposed reproductive freedom, gun regulation, immigrant rights, and efforts to combat discrimination. Ultimately disqualifying, however, are Barnett's own statements about how her religious views shape her legal philosophy and that her primary goal as a lawyer is "building the Kingdom of God," not defending the Constitution of the United States.
Since the Constitution forbids a "religious test," Amy Coney Barrett's membership in a Christian fundamentalist group is not a disqualification for office, however, her legal philosophy is.
Supreme Court Justices are required to take two oaths of office prior to taking their lifetime position on the court, the Judicial Oath and the Constitutional Oath. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, all judicial officers "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." It also says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Since passage of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, judicial appointees affirm that they "will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Since the Constitution forbids a "religious test," Amy Coney Barrett's membership in a Christian fundamentalist group is not a disqualification for office, however, her legal philosophy is. Barnett would be swearing to something she does not believe and will not do, which is a federal offense.
In 2017 Senate confirmation hearings, Barrett asserted "If you're asking whether I take my faith seriously and I'm a faithful Catholic -- I am, although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge." However, according to a 1998 journal article that Barrett co-authored, "(Catholic judges) are . . . obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters." In the same article, the authors quoted Justice William Brennan, who argued at his Senate confirmation hearing that in his position on the Supreme Court "what shall control me is the oath that I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and [I shall] so act upon the cases that come before me for decision that it is that oath and that alone which governs." Barrett and her co-author commented that "We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty".
In a 2006 commencement speech to graduates of Notre Dame Law School, Barrett went even further in spelling out the role of religion in her legal philosophy proclaiming "A legal career is but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God." Barrett also recommended that Catholic lawyers consult "God before making a choice" asking God, "In which situation can I best serve You? . . . we are a community engaged in the enterprise of legal education and scholarship, we are also a community engaged in the enterprise of bringing about the kingdom of God."
The United States Constitution says that judicial officers should not be subject to a religious test. The problem is that Amy Coney Barrett acknowledges she applies a "religious test" to every legal decision. Barrett has the absolute right to apply her "religious test" in her personal life and in her legal career, but not as a Supreme Court Justice and that is why her legal philosophy should disqualify her.
Alan Singer
Alan J. Singer is a historian and a professor of teaching, learning, and technology at Hofstra University.
Opposition to Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, has centered on his efforts to put her on the bench weeks before a Presidential election and her rightwing judicial positions. In three years since Trump appointed her a federal appeals court judge, Barrett has opposed reproductive freedom, gun regulation, immigrant rights, and efforts to combat discrimination. Ultimately disqualifying, however, are Barnett's own statements about how her religious views shape her legal philosophy and that her primary goal as a lawyer is "building the Kingdom of God," not defending the Constitution of the United States.
Since the Constitution forbids a "religious test," Amy Coney Barrett's membership in a Christian fundamentalist group is not a disqualification for office, however, her legal philosophy is.
Supreme Court Justices are required to take two oaths of office prior to taking their lifetime position on the court, the Judicial Oath and the Constitutional Oath. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, all judicial officers "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." It also says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Since passage of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, judicial appointees affirm that they "will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Since the Constitution forbids a "religious test," Amy Coney Barrett's membership in a Christian fundamentalist group is not a disqualification for office, however, her legal philosophy is. Barnett would be swearing to something she does not believe and will not do, which is a federal offense.
In 2017 Senate confirmation hearings, Barrett asserted "If you're asking whether I take my faith seriously and I'm a faithful Catholic -- I am, although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge." However, according to a 1998 journal article that Barrett co-authored, "(Catholic judges) are . . . obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters." In the same article, the authors quoted Justice William Brennan, who argued at his Senate confirmation hearing that in his position on the Supreme Court "what shall control me is the oath that I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and [I shall] so act upon the cases that come before me for decision that it is that oath and that alone which governs." Barrett and her co-author commented that "We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty".
In a 2006 commencement speech to graduates of Notre Dame Law School, Barrett went even further in spelling out the role of religion in her legal philosophy proclaiming "A legal career is but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God." Barrett also recommended that Catholic lawyers consult "God before making a choice" asking God, "In which situation can I best serve You? . . . we are a community engaged in the enterprise of legal education and scholarship, we are also a community engaged in the enterprise of bringing about the kingdom of God."
The United States Constitution says that judicial officers should not be subject to a religious test. The problem is that Amy Coney Barrett acknowledges she applies a "religious test" to every legal decision. Barrett has the absolute right to apply her "religious test" in her personal life and in her legal career, but not as a Supreme Court Justice and that is why her legal philosophy should disqualify her.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.