All Things Being Equal: Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS

 

“This year will be remembered as an especially auspicious time for the Supreme Court. President Trump is in a position to pick the next Justice from a list of extremely qualified jurists.” So says Leonard Leo, who was a key person putting together the list for President Trump. In an interview, he made clear his requirements and expectations:

What is important is that we have a judiciary occupied by individuals who understand … they have a duty and a moral obligation to enforce the structural Constitution. They have a duty to make sure that limits on government power are respected and enforced, and when they carry out that duty or obligation, they are in a myriad of ways preserving the worth and dignity of every human person. Because if you have a system where government can do anything, if you have a system where rights that aren’t in the Constitution can be created and things that are in it can be ignored, no one is safe.

The people on the qualifications list meet those requirements at a minimum. In fact, they are so well-qualified that many people are making their recommendations for Trump’s pick to separate the golden wheat from the less golden chaff. There is one person who has a unique combination of qualifications that no one else has, and that is Amy Coney Barrett.

First, I liked her ability and composure in taking on Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin when they were giving Ms. Barrett the third degree (called an interview in the normal nomenclature) when she was being considered for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. They were trying to put her through a “religious test,” even though they denied doing so when challenged by National Review. Clearly, her religiosity annoyed these senators and probably bothered other Democrats as well. Meanwhile, Ms. Barrett was confirmed. I also like the fact that she has been willing to live her religion through her speeches, and at the same time has stated that “Catholic judges should recuse themselves if personal convictions would impede their ability to do their job.”

My second reason for recommending Ms. Barrett is precisely because she is a religious, conservative woman. I’m not supporting her for archaic feminist reasons (whenever you can get a woman, put her in), but because the Left has specifically shown disdain for smart, successful conservative women. A person doesn’t have to wonder why Pam Bondi, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders were targeted recently to be harassed. These women defy Leftist norms: that women shouldn’t hold conservative values and if by chance they do, they must be ridiculed and persecuted.

So for all those on the Left who hold intelligent, religious and conservative women in disdain, take note. If Amy Coney Barrett is selected for SCOTUS, she will be representing the smart conservative women in our country, and the men who love and celebrate them.

Live with it.

There are 72 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Susan Quinn: So for all those on the Left who hold intelligent, religious and conservative women in disdain, take note. If Amy Coney Barrett is selected for SCOTUS, she will be representing the smart conservative women in our country, and the men who love and celebrate them.

    This is a good reason to nominate her.

    Susan Quinn: “Catholic judges should recuse themselves if personal convictions would impede their ability to do their job.”

    This is somewhat problematic. The future justice would have these words thrown in her face with calls to recuse herself or be a hypocrite on to many issues. I agree with the sentiment behind her comments. I think they are exactly right. I just think the will be misconstrued to create problems any time a catholic charity is a party or in any challenge to Roe. It is too easy to twist this comment into, you are Catholic and Catholics hate abortion how do we know you are being fair. You must recuse yourself or the ruling is invalid.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jager (View Comment):
    This is somewhat problematic. The future justice would have these words thrown in her face with calls to recuse herself or be a hypocrite on to many issues.

    I see your point, @jager. I would point out, that someone probably asked her that direct question and she had to answer it honestly. I would also point out that Scalia was a Catholic, and I don’t know if it came up as an issue for him.

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I also meant to add in the post that if someone wants to present his or her preferred candidate, feel free to do so!

    • #3
  4. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    I am excited by her potential nomination for no other reason than she would provide a necessary counter-balance to the current gang-of-three women currently sitting on the Supreme Court, all of whom operate from a left-of-center/hard left philosophy. Barrett’s sex is far less important than her support of a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution. 

    • #4
  5. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Jager (View Comment):
    It is too easy to twist this comment into, you are Catholic and Catholics hate abortion how do we know you are being fair. You must recuse yourself or the ruling is invalid.

    Easy for journalists. But that’s not a legal argument. Nobody could force her to recuse. So why care what they think? We are talking about the same disingenuous thugs who invented the War on Women. You can’t reason with unreasonable people. 

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):
    Barrett’s sex is far less important than her support of a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution. 

    And she clerked for Scalia, too!

    • #6
  7. Sash Member
    Sash
    @Sash

    I think it takes the wind out of the Democrat sails if Trump chooses any women.

    I do worry that some things might be used against her in the future, the recusal issues… but really recusals only happen if they have connection to a case personally.  I don’t think being the same religion is really a reason, or shouldn’t be.

    But even some Democrats say picking a woman will make it harder to oppose.  

    And Kagan can be convinced… so she might bring along a Kagan vote or two with solid conservative reasoning by another woman.

    But I’m on board, and just thrilled to death that Trump is getting this pick.  Whoever, made him develop that list… brilliant!

     

    • #7
  8. Sash Member
    Sash
    @Sash

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):
    It is too easy to twist this comment into, you are Catholic and Catholics hate abortion how do we know you are being fair. You must recuse yourself or the ruling is invalid.

    Easy for journalists. But that’s not a legal argument. Nobody could force her to recuse. So why care what they think? We are talking about the same disingenuous thugs who invented the War on Women. You can’t reason with unreasonable people.

    Also… Thomas, Alito, Scalia… all Catholics. Not going to recuse.

    • #8
  9. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):
    Barrett’s sex is far less important than her support of a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

    And she clerked for Scalia, too!

    It gets better and better, Susan. I did not know that she was a clerk for Scalia. But that’s great.

    I also agree with Postmodern that she would bring a nice balance to the other three (3 to 1; not bad for a conservative). It’s a shame that we have to think about sex when making these appointments. I still cling to the view that is the individual, regardless of sex, race, religion, etc, that is what’s important. However, the Left has almost forced us into thinking about these surface factors.

    By the way, as a non-Catholic, I was offended by the treatment she got from the Senate, particularly from Feinstein. How would she react if someone brought up her Judaism?

    • #9
  10. Gary Robbins Reagan
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Perfect.  And at 46, she is the youngest of the 25!  She only has a year on the bench, but that should not be disqualifying.

    My second choice to stick it to Schumer, Miguel Estrada.

    • #10
  11. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):
    This is somewhat problematic. The future justice would have these words thrown in her face with calls to recuse herself or be a hypocrite on to many issues.

    I see your point, @jager. I would point out, that someone probably asked her that direct question and she had to answer it honestly. I would also point out that Scalia was a Catholic, and I don’t know if it came up as an issue for him.

    No worries.  If Elena Kagan didn’t recuse herself from her work in the Obama adminstration, no Justice in the future has to recuse himself ever again.

    • #11
  12. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Susan Quinn: A person doesn’t have to wonder why Pam Bondi, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders were targeted recently to be harassed. These women defy Leftist norms: that women shouldn’t hold conservative values and if by chance they do, they must be ridiculed and persecuted.

    Also, they’re less likely to sock you in the kisser.    

    • #12
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    Also, they’re less likely to sock you in the kisser.

    Now why didn’t I think of that!

    • #13
  14. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Sash (View Comment):

    And Kagan can be convinced… so she might bring along a Kagan vote or two with solid conservative reasoning by another woman.

    But I’m on board, and just thrilled to death that Trump is getting this pick. Whoever, made him develop that list… brilliant!

    I haven’t heard that Kagan is “persuadable,” @sash. Then again, she’ll have two women on the Left twisting her arm–so to speak. And it is a very fine list!

    • #14
  15. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    I still cling to the view that is the individual, regardless of sex, race, religion, etc, that is what’s important. However, the Left has almost forced us into thinking about these surface factors.

    I agree. People should be selected on merit only. I only recommend Ms. Barrett for the reasons I outline in the OP.

    • #15
  16. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Stad (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):
    This is somewhat problematic. The future justice would have these words thrown in her face with calls to recuse herself or be a hypocrite on to many issues.

    I see your point, @jager. I would point out, that someone probably asked her that direct question and she had to answer it honestly. I would also point out that Scalia was a Catholic, and I don’t know if it came up as an issue for him.

    No worries. If Elena Kagan didn’t recuse herself from her work in the Obama adminstration, no Justice in the future has to recuse himself ever again.

    Nor the Notorious RBG, the former chief ACLU lawyer who (IIRC) while serving on the USSCt had publicly expressed her disdain for Donald Trump (big surprise), and that other nations ought not to look to the US Constitution as a model when drafting their own.

    Seems that latter view really ought to disqualify her from participating in any case before the Court involving the Constitution.

    Oh, wait —  all their cases involve the Constitution! Somebody tell her!

    • #16
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Seems that latter view really ought to disqualify her from participating in any case before the Court involving the Constitution.

    Oh, wait — all their cases involve the Constitution! Somebody tell her!

    Ha! Thanks for making me smile, @fritz. Good one!

    • #17
  18. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    I still cling to the view that is the individual, regardless of sex, race, religion, etc, that is what’s important. However, the Left has almost forced us into thinking about these surface factors.

    I agree. People should be selected on merit only. I only recommend Ms. Barrett for the reasons I outline in the OP.

    Hey, don’t dismiss superficial aspects so quickly.  She’s the best argument for televising SCOTUS hearings yet.

    • #18
  19. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Brilliant suggestion.   She’s great,  and will drive liberals up the wall, which, at this point is up and over and, should it be Trumps wall, into Mexico. I love it. 

    • #19
  20. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    By the way, as a non-Catholic, I was offended by the treatment she got from the Senate, particularly from Feinstein. How would she react if someone brought up her Judaism?

    If they really wanted to insult her, they could compare her to a Catholic Democrat like Pelosi. As usual, their side gets to play by different rules. 

    • #20
  21. Umbra of Nex Inactive
    Umbra of Nex
    @UmbraFractus

    I guess I’m more moderate when it comes to considering race or sex in hiring decisions. As long as there’s no lowering of standards in order to force a less qualified woman or minority into the role, which does not appear to be the case regarding Mrs. Barrett, I’m generally okay with using it as a tiebreaker. 

    The inevitable exploding of heads is a nice bonus in this case.

    • #21
  22. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    I still cling to the view that is the individual, regardless of sex, race, religion, etc, that is what’s important. However, the Left has aIlmost forced us into 6 about these surface factors.

    I agree. People should be selected on merit only. I only recommend Ms. Barrett for the reasons I outline in the OP.

    Hey, don’t dismiss superficial aspects so quickly. She’s the best argument for televising SCOTUS hearings yet.

    Ok, I’m a guy, so I understand what you mean. But, I do not believe Supreme Court hearings should be televised (sorry for being the skunk at the garden party).

     

    • #22
  23. CuriousKevmo Member
    CuriousKevmo
    @CuriousKevmo

    I’m just not ready for Associate Justice Kidman.

    • #23
  24. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    George Townsend (View Comment):
    Ok, I’m a guy, so I understand what you mean. But, I do not believe Supreme Court hearings should be televised (sorry for being the skunk at the garden party).

    I agree with you, George. Even for SCOTUS, it would be difficult to stay removed from the effect of the cameras.

    • #24
  25. Jules PA Member
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    If the golden five are equal in all respects, definitely go for the nomination that permits the left to reveal their true colors. 

    Times have changed a bit since Bork…hopefully the left gets pinned to the mat with and by Judge Barrett. 

    • #25
  26. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    From the Notre Dame Law School.

    She would be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court.

    • #26
  27. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    CuriousKevmo (View Comment):

    I’m just not ready for Associate Justice Kidman.

    ??

    • #27
  28. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jules PA (View Comment):

    If the golden five are equal in all respects, definitely go for the nomination that permits the left to reveal their true colors.

    Times have changed a bit since Bork…hopefully the left gets pinned to the mat with and by Judge Barrett.

    I understand that Trump will be deciding on July 9 and has two women in the final five!

    • #28
  29. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    From the Notre Dame Law School.

    She would be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court.

    Indeed! I’ve had just about enough of Harvard and Yale on the Court.

    • #29
  30. JustmeinAZ Member
    JustmeinAZ
    @JustmeinAZ

    I hate to say this, although I’m sure Barrett would be a fine choice, but I have this niggling thought that I don’t want 4 women on the Court. I have that treasonous opinion that women are more emotional than men (even Conservative women) and I want Court decisions to be based on the law and the Constitution only. Maybe he will pick her with the thought that he will probably get another go at it when Ginsburg keels over. One of these days she is going to fall asleep during a speech and not wake up.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.