Skip to main content

Who Is Amy Coney Barrett?

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

No doubt Democrat U.S. Senate opposition researchers (AKA “dirt diggers”) have for some time been combing through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s pristine past in search of some errant behavior they might use to derail her possible appointment by President Donald Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court. Before the curtain rings down on her U.S. Senate hearing, the real Barrett will likely be buried beneath mounds of rhetorical rubble as the Democrat Javerts on the Judicial Committee proceed with the dismantling work at hand.

The most notorious wrecking job in recent Senate hearings involved present Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, although  Supreme Court appointees Robert Bork, from whom the term “Borking” is derived, and Clarence Thomas were earlier publicly defamed by Democrats anxious to preserve a presumed liberal presence on the Court.

Kavanaugh was accused by a witness at first unwilling to come forward, professor of psychology Christine Blasey Ford, of sexual improprieties that she testified had occurred many years earlier. During the course of the hearing, it transpired that the only direct witness cited by Ford as having been present during the unreported crime had no recollection of being been present on the occasion. By the time Kavanaugh was appointed to the Court, he had been sufficiently mauled to quell temporarily the sometimes bestial instincts of Democrat senators riven by anxiety, none of whom were able seriously to fault Kavanaugh, given an AAA rating by the American Bar Association, on his many court decisions.

Barrett’s curriculum vitae is entirely unexceptional -- but not, one supposes, to Connecticut’s own Javert, former Attorney General, now U.S. Senator, Dick Blumenthal. Along with New York’s Javert, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, Blumenthal has served in the front ranks of Supreme Court oppositionists. Blumenthal already has announced that he would not view favorably ANY Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Donald Trump, a prime example of triumphant prejudice that would quickly eliminate Blumenthal for service on any jury in the United States. “First the verdict, then the trial” says the Queen of Hearts in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass.”  

Should Trump nominate Barrett for a position on the Court, she will have faced Democrat interrogators twice. During her first go-around, Barrett was found too Catholic by Senior U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. Feinstein noted that Barrett had a “long history of believing that religious beliefs should prevail.” Having reviewed Barrett’s speeches, Feinstein remarked “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.” Pointing inferentially to abortion, Feinstein added, “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”  The “dogma” that so offended Feinstein is, of course, Catholic dogma.

According to a brief biography in SCOTUSblog, “Barrett has been married for over 18 years to Jesse Barrett, a partner in a South Bend law firm who spent 13 years as a federal prosecutor in Indiana. They have seven children (only two fewer than her old boss, Scalia). At her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing, Barrett introduced three of her daughters, who were sitting behind her. She told senators that one daughter, then-13-year-old Vivian, was adopted from Haiti at the age of 14 months, weighing just 11 pounds; she was so weak at the time that the Barretts were told she might never walk normally or talk. The Barretts adopted a second child, Jon Peter, from Haiti after the 2011 earthquake, and Barrett described their youngest child, Benjamin, as having special needs that “present unique challenges for all of us.” These acts of love and charity are likely the result of some residual Catholic dogma living loudly within Trump’s possible Supreme Court nominee.

Barrett already has answered the principal objection voiced by pro-abortion senators such as Feinstein, Schumer, Blumenthal et al, which is this: In any conflict between Catholic dogma and a fair reading of the U.S. Constitution, which will prevail in Barrett’s Supreme Court judicial reasoning?

Questioned on the point during her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing, Barrett stressed, according to SCOTUSblog, “that she did not believe it was ‘lawful for a judge to impose personal opinions, from whatever source they derive, upon the law,’ and she pledged that her views on abortion ‘or any other question will have no bearing on the discharge of my duties as a judge.’ She acknowledged that, if she were instead being nominated to serve as a federal trial judge, she ‘would not enter an order of execution, but she assured senators that she did not intend ‘as a blanket matter to recuse myself in capital cases if I am confirmed’ and added that she had ‘fully participated in advising Justice Scalia in capital cases as a law clerk.’”

The real ongoing struggle between “liberal” and “conservative” senators over appointments to the Supreme Court centers upon their differing views of acceptable judicial manners. Liberal Democrat senators, who have now refashioned themselves as progressives, view the court as a helpmate in advancing progressive legislative measures; and most Republicans, conservative or middle-of-the-road, want to maintain the integrity of the court as originalist interpreters of the Constitution, a body of judicial interpreters who should leave legislating to elected legislators.

Barrett is an originalist, which is not at all the same thing as a conservative.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The PURA soap opera continues in Connecticut: Business eyeing the exit signs

The trouble at PURA and the two energy companies it oversees began – ages ago, it now seems – with the elevation of Marissa Gillett to the chairpersonship of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulation Authority.   Connecticut Commentary has previously weighed in on the controversy: PURA Pulls The Plug on November 20, 2019; The High Cost of Energy, Three Strikes and You’re Out? on December 21, 2024; PURA Head Butts the Economic Marketplace on January 3, 2025; Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA on February 3, 2025; and Lamont’s Pillow Talk on February 22, 2025:   The melodrama full of pratfalls continues to unfold awkwardly.   It should come as no surprise that Gillett has changed the nature and practice of the state agency. She has targeted two of Connecticut’s energy facilitators – Eversource and Avangrid -- as having in the past overcharged the state for services rendered. Thanks to the Democrat controlled General Assembly, Connecticut is no l...

The Murphy Thingy

It’s the New York Post, and so there are pictures. One shows Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy canoodling with “Courier Newsroom publisher Tara McGowan, 39, last Monday by the bar at the Red Hen, located just one mile north of Capitol Hill.”   The canoodle occurred one day or night prior to Murphy’s well-advertised absence from President Donald Trump’s recent Joint Address to Congress.   Murphy has said attendance at what was essentially a “campaign rally” involving the whole U.S. Congress – though Democrat congresspersons signaled their displeasure at the event by stonily sitting on their hands during the applause lines – was inconsistent with his dignity as a significant part of the permanent opposition to Trump.   Reaching for his moral Glock Murphy recently told the Hartford Courant that Democrat Party opposition to President Donald Trump should be unrelenting and unforgiving: “I think people won’t trust you if you run a campaign saying that if Donald Trump is ...

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...