America's Catholic Supreme Court

[exchemist]

Her own words in an interview is her position as a judge is a means to an end, and that is doing what she believes is establishing gods kingdom.
Too bad that isn't an automatic disqualification, as that would be an infringement upon the First unlike the illegal and unconstitutional tests of faith that several states have that effectively and illegally ban atheists from public office.
But this is the predictable outcome of a Trump/Pence presidency. Voting for them was then and is now a vote to destroy secularism in America.
Hopefully the Dems will play hardball and create more SC positions to balance out a heavy unbalanced court.

That's curious, because at her original confirmation hearing, the following exchange was reported (my emphasis in red):

A hearing on Barrett's nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.[19] During the hearing, Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about a law review article Barrett co-wrote in 1998 with Professor John H. Garvey in which she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty. The article concluded that the trial judge should recuse herself instead of entering the order. Asked to "elaborate on the statements and discuss how you view the issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today," Barrett said that she had participated in many death-penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia, adding, "My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge"[20][21] and "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."[22] Worried that Barrett would not uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, Feinstein followed Barrett's response by saying, "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern."[23][24][25]

I wonder if the interview you are referring to may have been about something different, viz. how she sees practising the law as a choice in life. Could we have an extract from this interview?

I have no dog in this fight, but I do think if one criticises her it should be based on fair use of the information we have about her.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Catholic doesn't necessarily mean anti-LGBT or anti-minorities.
JFK and his brother RK were both Catholic.

Right. No matter what the Catholic Church's stance on an issue - same-sex marriage, contraception, divorce rights, abortion rights, freedom of religion for non-Catholic denominations, whatever - we can find countless Catholic lawmakers supporting the legal right to do the thing that the Catholic Church says Catholics ought not to do.

This suggests to me that the odd time that we get an elected official saying that they can't cooperate with one of these things because it goes against their "Catholic faith," they're talking out of their butt.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have a link to the interview?

That, and I juicy quote I found looking for it.
What to Know About Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s SCOTUS Pick

including in a 2006 speech in which she stated, “Our legal career is but a means to an end, and … that end is building the kingdom of God.” Barrett has also come under fire for her membership in People of Praise,

Her words: Amy Coney Barrett on faith, precedent, abortion

Catholic judges) are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty. They are also obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters.”

 

[tytlyf]

The Catholic world is not monolithic...

In fact in Italy there is a derogatory term, cattocomunisti (Catho-communists) used towards leftists who are sided by the Vatican institutions.

Do not forget the Pope has never hidden his antipathy towards Trump and rightists like him.

There are religious people and then there are dominionist's. Huge difference when it comes to a secular society governed by a secular constitution.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That, and I juicy quote I found looking for it.
What to Know About Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s SCOTUS Pick

Her words: Amy Coney Barrett on faith, precedent, abortion

I don't get it. None of those quotes from her are controversial.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Assuming Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed by the Senate and becomes a Supreme Court Justice, she will be the 6th Justice (out of 9) who is Catholic. The others are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Sonia Sotomayor. Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic, but is now Episcopalian.

Catholics compose about 20% of the American population. Does the fact that we have such a disproportionately high number of Catholics on the Court concern you?

No.

 

[ecco]

Her words: Amy Coney Barrett on faith, precedent, abortion

That's a very informative article...

I can see many of the reforms of the past 40 years being wiped out.

 

[ecco]

I don't get it. None of those quotes from her are controversial.

Really? Did you read the same article? (my emphasis)
Professor Barrett has argued that a judge’s faith should affect how they approach certain cases,” including in a 2006 speech in which she stated, “Our legal career is but a means to an end, and … that end is building the kingdom of God.” Barrett has also come under fire for her membership in People of Praise, a Catholic Revivalist group that has been called a cult by critics.

In 2015, Barrett signed a letter with Dannenfelser and other prominent anti-choicers affirming the value of “life from conception.”

 

[Shaul]

I heard most of the Supreme Court Justices are omnivores too. Maybe they are anti-Veganists!

Seriously, there is no evidence that their religion makes any difference. They deal with legal issues, not theological ones.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm more concerned that all are believers (Christian or Jew).
Odd that no atheist has ever been deemed qualified to rule
on constitutional law, eh.

As early as 1910 the Fellowship Forum identified Roman Catholic intentions to influence our government. It is possible that this is part of a long term effort to do so. I wouldn't put it past the Vatican, but I think this is just a coincidence. I don't think the Vatican currently has any designs on controlling the USA. Influencing...probably. All the justices have to swear allegiance to do their jobs, too; so they can't just do whatever they want to do. They can't 'Be Roman Catholic' about their decisions without breaking their oaths.

I am worried for Roe v Wade, and LGBT rights and protections. Abortion cases are already primed for Supreme Court battle, they're only waiting to pull the trigger.

It sounds like you strongly believe in pro choice, but to some its extremely immoral. They are asked to fund it and to promote it through taxes, and they view that as compulsion to do evil. Its always going to be contested for a long time to come. LGBT rights I think you need not worry about. I think those much more easily defensible and in a different situation. The pro-life/pro-choice debate I don't see ever ending no matter what any court says.

However, the USA seems to have bred a special sort of mad, staring, bonkers Catholicism, which appalled and repelled me when I encountered it during my spell there. Not all US Catholics are like that, of course. But one suspects the types that appeal to Trump (for political reasons rather than any religious conviction, naturally) may well be.

Knocks the breath out of me. Sure, sure they're nothing like you sane Catholics over there. Its only our Catholics over here, right?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Really? Did you read the same article? (my emphasis)
Professor Barrett has argued that a judge’s faith should affect how they approach certain cases,” including in a 2006 speech in which she stated, “Our legal career is but a means to an end, and … that end is building the kingdom of God.” Barrett has also come under fire for her membership in People of Praise, a Catholic Revivalist group that has been called a cult by critics.

In 2015, Barrett signed a letter with Dannenfelser and other prominent anti-choicers affirming the value of “life from conception.”

I'm talking about the second link SW posted. The one that's actual quotes from her.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does the fact that we have such a disproportionately high number of Catholics on the Court concern you?

Thinking about this more...

The idea of Catholic jurists doesn't concern me, but it does concern me that it seems impossible for non-religious judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Apparently, 26% of the American people are "unaffiliated" with a religion, but AFAIK there's never been a non-religious judge on the Supreme Court.

So to the extent that overrepresentation of one group is also underrepresentation of other groups, this is a concern, since the underrepresentation of other groups suggests systemic issues.

Strangely, there also hasn't been a Protestant on the Supreme Court since 2010. I'm not sure what to make of that.

 

[tytlyf]

This nominee would clearly have a problem putting the Constitution before the Bible

 

[The Hammer]

It sounds like you strongly believe in pro choice, but to some its extremely immoral. They are asked to fund it and to promote it through taxes, and they view that as compulsion to do evil. Its always going to be contested for a long time to come. LGBT rights I think you need not worry about. I think those much more easily defensible and in a different situation. The pro-life/pro-choice debate I don't see ever ending no matter what any court says.

Yes, I am very much pro-choice/pro-non-governmental interference. Very minimal public funding goes towards abortion services, most States already prohibit it, and it is prohibited at a federal level as well.

Public Funding for Abortion

My taxes go to many things I am religiously/fundamentally opposed to. I see that as a bad moral argument.

 

[exchemist]

As early as 1910 the Fellowship Forum identified Roman Catholic intentions to influence our government. It is possible that this is part of a long term effort to do so. I wouldn't put it past the Vatican, but I think this is just a coincidence. I don't think the Vatican currently has any designs on controlling the USA. Influencing...probably. All the justices have to swear allegiance to do their jobs, too; so they can't just do whatever they want to do. They can't 'Be Roman Catholic' about their decisions without breaking their oaths.

It sounds like you strongly believe in pro choice, but to some its extremely immoral. They are asked to fund it and to promote it through taxes, and they view that as compulsion to do evil. Its always going to be contested for a long time to come. LGBT rights I think you need not worry about. I think those much more easily defensible and in a different situation. The pro-life/pro-choice debate I don't see ever ending no matter what any court says.

Knocks the breath out of me. Sure, sure they're nothing like you sane Catholics over there. Its only our Catholics over here, right?

Almost, I think, yes. We have Opus Dei and a few other faintly creepy societies, it is true, but never in my life have I come across the ghastly, strident, tribal Catholicism of that Donoghue guy you have over there - if he's still alive. Nor do we have anything like People of Praise, the so-called "global", but almost exclusively US-based, charismatic group that ACB belongs to. (Personally, I think charismatic Catholicism is nuts and dangerous, as it encourages people to let go of their reason, but that's another story.).

Religion in the USA seems in general far more extreme than in Europe. As another example, we have no equivalent of the general madness of the US Bible Belt, in which hundreds of thousands of people seem to believe the utter tosh of creationism - and even try to get it into their schools. Some guys (from N Ireland and Glasgow, where crazy Protestantism has not yet died out) who were affiliated to the Disco' 'Tute tried to get ID off the ground in the UK but it was stillborn.

Here endeth the rant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't get it. None of those quotes from her are controversial.

Saying her position is ameans to an end woth the end being gods kingdom, amd saying judges are obligated to rule in accordance with their churches morality is extremely controversial becaise it is her belief she can force the dogma that is strong in her upon the rest of us.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, I am very much pro-choice/pro-non-governmental interference. Very minimal public funding goes towards abortion services, most States already prohibit it, and it is prohibited at a federal level as well.

Public Funding for Abortion

My taxes go to many things I am religiously/fundamentally opposed to. I see that as a bad moral argument.

Its pathetic how so many scream about their tax dollars supporting abortion and it's not happening. Its also pathetic that people believe a woman is not entitled to her body and bodily autonomy.

 

[Kenny]

Assuming Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed by the Senate and becomes a Supreme Court Justice, she will be the 6th Justice (out of 9) who is Catholic. The others are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Sonia Sotomayor. Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic, but is now Episcopalian.

Catholics compose about 20% of the American population. Does the fact that we have such a disproportionately high number of Catholics on the Court concern you? Thrill you? Intrigue you? Is it irrelevant to you? What do you think it will mean for the legal future of social issues, e.g. contraception, abortion, and LGBTQ rights?

Irrelevant on multiple points IMV

1. Catholics have a belief system that ranges from "The Pope speaks on behalf of God" to "i go to church to honor God" to "I go to church out of tradition".
2. Supreme Court, I thought, judge the law by what is written and not by their personal opinions. Am I wrong?
3. Jurisprudence

 

[exchemist]

That, and I juicy quote I found looking for it.
What to Know About Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s SCOTUS Pick

Her words: Amy Coney Barrett on faith, precedent, abortion

These links are useless, I'm afraid. They quote-mine her words without giving any context.

This is exactly the sort of thing creationists do, for which they rightly get hauled over the coals in this forum. What we need is a decent extract from her 2006 speech, so we can all see in what context she made her "means to an end " remark.

I am suspicious that she may be being misrepresented, because I have provided, with context, statements from her confirmation hearing that seem to say the opposite. So really, we need to get to the bottom of this before we can draw any conclusions about how she will discharge her duties as a judge.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

These links are useless, I'm afraid. They quote-mine her words without giving any context.

This is exactly the sort of thing creationists do, for which they rightly get hauled over the coals in this forum. What we need is a decent extract from her 2006 speech, so we can all see in what context she made her "means to an end " remark.

I am suspicious that she may be being misrepresented, because I have provided, with context, statements from her confirmation hearing that seem to say the opposite. So really, we need to get to the bottom of this before we can draw any conclusions about how she will discharge her duties as a judge.

So, her saying judges are obligated to rule in accordance with their church is useless? Such a statement should never come from a judge, unless it's to emphasis that shpuld not happen.