Amy Coney Barrett: Crusader for religous conservatism

The providential nature of the formation of the United States has been one of the more enduring aspects of the founding of the nation. The country on the whole has been described in its earliest documents and literature as “The New Jerusalem”, and “The City on the Hill.” 

American currency is printed with the words, “In God We Trust,” and there are countless prayer appeals from suburban football players, and words of thanks from Hollywood film stars to Broadway actors, as they hold their gilded awards aloft, after winning performances, in thanksgiving to the Almighty for their victory.

For some, it came as no surprise that Amy Coney Barrett, one of the contenders for the empty slot on the Supreme Court, announced, when she was first confirmed, for her current position, that her Roman Catholic faith informed her decisions.

That fact became part of a notable exchange, from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, when she commented, as Politico recalled, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for years in this country,” in an obvious reference to those that have fought for a liberal and progressive agenda.

Adding flames to the fire of discontent, by some, on the left, was that “While she identifies as a Roman Catholic, Barrett is also a member of People of Praise, a small Christian group that practices traditions outside mainstream Christianity, according to the New York Times. Among the group’s practices are a tradition of swearing a lifelong covenant of loyalty to one another and the belief that husbands have more authority than wives over a family.”

Americans love the Christian affiliation, from its founders to its adherents, but in the area of practice it has struggled with how and when it can be called up, or tamped down in national political life.

The Constitution says only that there be no established religion, and that all are free to practice their religion, freely, and without compromise, as they see fit.

Thomas Jefferson, in his reply to a letter from the Danbury Baptists, in 1801, who wanted a national day of fasting, famously and eloquently, described the “wall of separation” between church and state, that has been used by many, thereafter, with some actually erroneously thinking that his words are enshrined in the document.

Then there was the Scopes Trial, on the teaching of evolution, and then Madalyn Murray O’Hair, famously adhering to atheism wearing her “sugar scoop” hat and crinolines, with the Stars and Stripes in the background of one of her more remembered photos.

Shortly thereafter was Dr. Martin Luther King, framing the rights of Black Americans in the words of Holy Scripture, in moral terms, and paraphrasing from the Book of Amos, ““until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream,” as a plea for justice.

During the early years of the administration of George W. Bush there was the joining of the moral majority and the many prayer breakfasts across Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers had Bible study as an option, making that wall more porous than Jefferson intended.

Now, in the 21st century we have a divided nation, in both thought, word, and deed, by a president who played on the conscience of those that never embraced the rights movement, by blacks, women, or gays; and were brought to the polls by words that spurred them on to “take back” the nation, making the 2016 presidential election look like a religious crusade.

With descending polls, Trump, as we have often seen is looking to hanging on, along with fellow Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections that many say will turn the tide for the flailing Democrats, struck down by the crash and burn of Hillary Clinton.

The actions of the president, as we have discussed in earlier columns, be they children separated from their parents as they illegally enter the country to the travel ban for some Muslim majority countries, has seized the prejudices of a few for the rule of the majority.

Enter Amy --- the preferred candidate, say some, to fill the Kennedy resignation, and again, as Politico noted: “Her rapid ascent in elite legal circles is due in part to a calculation by the president’s legal team, which is looking to inculcate Trump and the Republican Party more broadly against Democratic attacks that they are coming after women’s rights.

The solution, argue an increasing number of conservatives, is for the president to tap a woman — but a reliable conservative — to replace Kennedy, who for years ping-ponged between the court’s liberal and conservative wings. “The main reason I favor Barrett ... is the obvious one,” Ponnuru wrote in a Bloomberg View op-ed: “She’s a woman. It may be that in an ideal world, the sex of a Supreme Court nominee would not matter. But opposing a woman will probably be more awkward for senators than opposing a man would be. “

Pasting gender onto religious conservatism, is a new tack, and it might work, say some we have spoken to.

Then move to the most emotional and contentious social issue for Americans, abortion, as a freedom, enshrined in Roe V. Wade, and the stakes get even higher: a woman, on what many see as a woman’s issue, and the religious conservatism that has embraced Roman Catholic Cardinals to Southern Fundamentalism, the opportunity is too bold, to reject.

“The subject of controversy with Feinstein and other Democrats in Barrett’s October 2017 confirmation hearing was a 1998 article she co-authored with John Garvey, president of the Catholic University of America, arguing that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases given their moral objections to capital punishment,” a shot that has some precedent, and punishment, when John Kerry, was told by some, running as president that due to his pro-life stance he would be denied Holy Communion, by some bishops such as Raymond Burke.

The thorns of the past, while still present, in virtual files, might not come to pass, since Barrett has a thin judicial record, yet some say even that does not matter. In one move, that can be read, is whether Roe was even remotely tenable, on its basis.

The latest news is that Trump may be giving a second look to Thomas Hardiman, whose affable personality and rags-to-riches story is appealing; and who is less likely to have the brutal fight for confirmation, than Barrett would have.

Another top contender, Brett M. Kavanaugh, a former staff secretary to George W. Bush, is not seen by some in the White House as being sufficiently conservative; but others see that as a slight, since both he and Barrett are comparatively young, and their appointments would swing the Court to the right, for decades to come.

In the absence of the London bookies, all that is left is hope, lawyerly wings, and maybe a prayer, for the final decision, to be announced Monday evening at 9:00 p.m., from the White House.