In Haranguing Nominee’s Faith, Democrats Create New SCOTUS Contender 

By Published on September 11, 2017

The scrutiny Democrats on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary applied to the religious conviction of one of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees may have the unintended consequence of elevating the candidate as a natural contender for the next vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Committee Democrats peppered the nominee, Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett, with a series of questions about her religious convictions, suggesting she would elevate her personal religious views over established case law where the two conflict. Though the remarks were widely condemned, they also cast Barrett as a natural candidate to the Supreme Court, to the extent we might think of judicial confirmations — like much of modern American politics — as popular entertainment. 

“The Supreme Court is not immune from what we might call ‘reality-tv-ification,’ where public figures act as characters in a drama,” University of Richmond School of Law Professor Kevin Walsh told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Walsh explained that media coverage of the high court often resembles  successful television in the sense that it involves “breathless discussion of the latest so-called blockbuster ruling and a somewhat superficial analysis of personalities and ideologies.” 

In the context of a confirmation hearing, Walsh says lawmakers responding to incentives will play a certain character for the television cameras, and nominees — reacting to the senators — will play another. 

“When you have a senator who is playing a certain role, in part, for television cameras, then the candidate who has been nominated ends up taking on a particular role too,” he said. 

Barrett’s hearing effectively introduced a new character to this national primetime drama, an accomplished law professor made to answer questions about her faith by hostile inquisitors. Social conservatives have already cast her as something of a folk hero, while much of the nation’s religious establishment condemned the committee’s line of questioning as it related to Barrett’s Catholicism. 

Since judicial appointments are for Trump, like so many other things, a matter of dramatics, Barrett emerged from last week’s hearing as a heroine of the series and therefore a natural candidate for the next appointment to the Supreme Court in the eyes of a president for whom the entire game is a PR battle. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that Barrett is an accomplished law professor with supporters across the legal firmament. She therefore becomes a major asset to the administration — a seasoned academic and favorite new character of this season. 

 

Follow Kevin on TwitterSend tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. 

Copyright 2017 The Daily Caller News Foundation

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Let’s not forget how self-deceived these Senators are, either, that they seem to think the public stands behind them. What are their “approval” ratings, again?

  • tether

    So much for the no religious test clause.

  • OldSaltUSNR

    The Democrats have no regard for the US Constitution, or citizen protections codified under the “Bill of Rights”. That’s why they consider the Constitution “an evolving document”. Yes, really, regardless of the fact that the founding fathers carefully laid out the method for modifying the Constitution, guaranteeing that any change go through the arduous process guaranteeing the support of the citizens and discouraging changes due to the popular mood of the times, the Democrats reject these protections. They KNOW that their socialist, anti-Christian, anti-Western mores will never garner the popular support of the American people. That is why they go around the Constitution with their new “litmus tests”, their un-Constitution judicial rulings by activists judges, “commissions” that require certain political speech (e.g. Colorado’s case against a Christian baker), and so forth.

    There are two solutions to this problem: Impeachment, frequent and often, every time a Senator, Judge, or state official openly violates the US Constitution, they need to be publicly and immediately impeached. Don’t wait ten years for a USSC decision. Don’t protest. Impeach them. If your Senator refuses, IMPEACH (or at least primary) him or her. No excuses. No exceptions. There are certain things these people do that are clearly and obviously un-Constitutional, and to tolerate them even one time, is to lose the entire republic.

    Oh, and that second solution: 1860.v2 (a.k.a. 1776.v2). That solution costs a WHOLE lot more. That’s why the founding fathers ENDED their war with a Constitution and Bill of Rights, and agreement among the seriously politically divided states that while they would perhaps hold their noses while acquiescing to such revolting concepts such as slavery, they would SETTLE their issues within a framework of Constitutional limits on government authority. However, the modern Democrats are playing whole new game, clearly and irrefutably rejecting the original political compromise. Their “new rule” is “achieving political objectives by any means necessary….”. Hey, I’m not exaggerating or mis-characterizing the Democrat left, either, it’s their own words.

  • Charles Burge

    Where is the condemnation from the left over a woman getting bullied and berated? Oh yeah… it’s okay to do that if the woman in question is either a conservative or a Christian.

  • TheSaint4JC

    I’m not putting much hope in this candidate since she is a Catholic… why? Mainly because I was Catholic before I became a Spirit-filled born-again believer… and knowing the void of the religiosity of Catholicism… I don’t see any hope in the power of the Holy Spirit available to someone who has no understanding of or relationship with Him.

    • chrisinva

      No such thing as an “ex-Catholic,” TSCJ, just Catholics “on leave.” Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

      Meanwhile, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist is always waiting for you in the Blessed Sacrament, available in any Catholic Church. Don’t lose hope!

      And btw, she’ll be a terrific judge.

  • Guido__Curlybone

    I don’t know Barrett’s record but hopefully Ruth G will be coming up soon.

Inspiration
Christians, We’re a Team. Let’s Act Like One
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us