Religion matters

Conditioning legal eligibility for public office on the aspirants' religious views or affiliations is unconstitutional and that's a good thing.

But that is not to say there is anything amiss in decision makers' taking into account their religious opinions, as and so far as they may affect the aspirants' performance of official functions.

Democrats as well as Republicans are well aware that Joe Biden is a practising Catholic and Hillary a practising Methodist, so it matters to them all that both are publicly and credibly committed to a woman's right to an abortion and the defense of Roe, though the Catholic Church and most Evangelical Churches oppose that right and support the overturn of Roe.

Just as members of both parties are aware that Rick Santorum is a very different sort of Catholic from Joe Biden, and openly opposes Roe and the right to choose.

As just as both are well aware what sort of Catholic is Amy Coney Barrett, thought to be one of five judges under consideration by Trump to be nominated for the Supreme Court seat soon to be vacated by Anthony Kennedy.

Republicans cheer and Democrats boo at what is known of how her religion bears on issues.

One of the candidates the president spoke to was Amy Coney Barrett, a former professor of law at Notre Dame Law School, who become a hero of many religious conservatives when she was appointed to the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

During confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein challenged her over her religious beliefs, saying it seemed to many observers “the dogma lives loudly within you and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country”.

. . . .

During the election campaign, Mr Trump said he believed that landmark ruling would “naturally” become overturned as a result of the justices he appointed to the court. 

“I am pro-life,” he said, during one of three presidential debates with Hillary Clinton. 

“Judge Amy Coney Barrett would make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is known to be close to Mr Trump. 

“Her clarity and intellectual strength in the Senate hearings for her current judgeship showed an intellect and a depth of thought that would be powerful on the Supreme Court.

By contrast, Senate minority Chuck Schumer has attacked Ms Barrett’s qualifications.

Actually, he attacked her for her known positions.

“Amy Coney Barrett is a judge on the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit & on @realDonaldTrump’s pre-approved list for SCOTUS. She passed his ‘litmus test’ on overturning Roe v Wade & striking down the ACA. Here’s where she stands on Americans' big issues,” he said in a series of tweets.

“Barrett attacked the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, which has helped millions of people secure health insurance coverage. Barrett also fought efforts to ensure that all women have access to contraceptives.”

He added: “She disagrees with ‘stare decisis’ — the idea that cases like Roe v Wade are settled law in the courts — and instead has said she wants ‘space’ for ‘reargument’.

Commentators pointed out Ms Barrett previously appeared to defend Roe v Wade. 

In 2013, the wrote that she thought the law would not be overturned, though others have said she was reflecting on the fact that it was settled law, not that she supported it.

Here is a dose of constitutional realism.

The idea that there is any such thing as a unique correct and reasonable interpretation of crucial facets of the Constitution is nonsense.

And the idea that judicial preference for one view or another must not in the least be driven by the personal religious or moral views, or the political commitments, of the interpreter is jejune nonsense, given there is damn all else to drive it.

And so all that inevitably applies as well to the preferences of senators who get to choose who will join the Supreme Board of constitutional interpreters, whose collective decisions are generally unchallengeable except by their later selves or their successors, and generally stand for many decades.