The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was another wrench thrown into the American political landscape. Her passing came 46 days prior to the 2020 election, which created a heated debate over whether or not President Donald Trump should fill the seat. As president, Trump has a constitutional duty to appoint new justices when spots open up, but the debate over confirming a new justice in the Senate is not about obligation, but precedent.
In 2016, President Barack Obama wanted to fill conservative Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat with Merrick Garland. The Republican Senate refused to hold committee hearings for the nominee. They wanted to wait for the next president to fill the seat, because it was an election year. When Trump was elected, he nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch to the court and was successfully confirmed. But this time around, Senate Republicans are being called hypocritical for wanting to fill the seat during an election year. Democrats believe the Senate should only confirm a new justice until after the inauguration, under a second term of Trump or under former Vice President Joe Biden.
On Saturday, Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She will now be subject to testify publicly in hearings conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. If it goes according to plan, the Senate Republicans hope to have Barrett confirmed just days before the election, which would be a much faster process in comparison to recent confirmations.
Unfortunately, people have used their anger regarding the Trump presidency and Ginsburg’s death to smear Barrett. It appears that America has turned the clocked back to 1960, where some were concerned that John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, would be more loyal to the Pope than to serve the interests of the American people if elected president.
Due to Barrett being a Catholic and part of a small religious group called People of Praise, there is an attempt to paint Barrett as a religious freak. There was even a false report that People of Praise was the inspiration for the Hulu series The Handmaid’s Tale. National Review, Vox, and several other sources have disproved the story (and if Vox is saying it’s false, that should mean something to the left). Out of curiosity, what part of The Handmaid’s Tale allows a working mother of seven to work her way to becoming a Supreme Court nominee?
Am I Catholic? No.
Am I a member of People of Praise? No.
Is she a religious freak? Probably not, I don’t know her personally.
Are the attacks to smear her faith justified? Absolutely not. Her religious beliefs do not impact her ability to uphold the United States Constitution and interpret the law.
Barrett’s legal qualifications show that she is ready to serve on the highest court in the land. Barrett graduated at the top of her class at Notre Dame Law School, is a law professor, and clerked for Justice Scalia. Currently, she serves as a federal judge on the seventh circuit Court of Appeals.
Progressives know they cannot go after Barrett for being unqualified, so they are resorting to personal attacks for being a conservative Christian woman.
Perhaps even more disgusting than the attacks on her faith are the allegations about her two adopted children from Haiti. Several progressive activists and Democratic staffers are accusing Barrett of treating their adopted children poorly. There is no evidence to back up this claim specifically regarding Barrett and her family.
If Barrett was a progressive, the left would likely champion her as a successful mother who has it all. But because Barrett does not align with their narrative, her and her family will be put through hell these next few weeks. I wish her all the best. She will do a superb job as a Supreme Court Justice if confirmed.