Why Amy Coney Barrett is Biden’s Worst Nightmare
Oct 2, 2020 by David Fowler
According to an article written last week by law professor John Yoo, Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote earlier this year “that judges must adhere to the original public meaning of the Constitution’s text.” Her statement should give great solace to those political liberals who are worried about her Catholic beliefs regarding abortion; however, it is also exactly what will drive those same people to rage against her. She is Joe Biden’s worst nightmare in terms of a Supreme Court Justice.
Two reasons immediately come to mind as to why Judge Barrett’s statement should remove all concerns that she would impose on the Constitution her Catholic beliefs about abortion, which are in line with Catholic doctrine.
The first is that no Supreme Court justice should impose his or her personal beliefs about public policy onto the words in the Constitution. Judges are not supposed to make public policy.
Second, the original public meaning of the words in the Constitution is rather easily discernable from any number of books about the common law written during the colonial period up to and through the ratification of the Constitution. We even have dictionaries from that general period.
The words used in the Constitution did not have variable public meanings depending on whether the reader was Catholic, Protestant, atheistic, or agnostic. Her “public meaning” standard of constitutional interpretation doesn’t leave much room in her judicial philosophy to assign words a meaning she wants them to have.
So, what’s the real problem?
Joe Biden exposed his disdain for the Constitution, and any attempt by a justice to construe its words and phrases according to their original public meaning, in his opposition to the nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas believes in natural law, which is a shorthand way of saying that God has imposed a moral law on His creatures. It is a law woven into the moral “nature” of things by God. Biden was concerned that Thomas would use “natural law” or God’s moral law to interpret the words and phrases in the Constitution. This would then mean the end of abortion rights.
But, lo and behold, in opposing the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court a few years earlier, Biden condemned him because he did not believe that the Constitution protects certain "natural" rights, because they are not mentioned in the document itself. Here is what Biden said: "My rights are not derived from any government . . . My rights are because I exist. They were given to me and each of our fellow citizens by our Creator and they represent the essence of human dignity."
What? Which is it Mr. Biden: Do you want the Constitution interpreted according to natural law concepts are not? The answer is simple, though not obvious.
Biden was afraid that Judge Thomas believed in the “bad” kind of natural law. He was afraid Judge Thomas believed in the kind of natural law that means God, as Creator, has indeed imposed timeless moral truths on mankind and has made certain things off-limits. That kind of natural law, for example, would not allow the life of an unborn natural person to be destroyed by an abortionist.
On the other hand, Biden was afraid that Judge Bork didn’t believe in the “good” kind of natural law, the kind in which rights actually inhere in man and God as a Creator is really a meaningless catch-phrase, one that we are used to hearing because it’s in the Declaration of Independence. This kind of natural law is “good” because it does not posit any timeless truths, and, therefore, it doesn’t prevent us from doing anything we want to do, like let a doctor kill a child in the womb.
Joe Biden is a flat-out hypocrite when it comes to the Constitution. He doesn’t want a Constitution that has fixed boundaries by which we can judge and control wanton abuses of defined powers by our representatives. He wants a permission-slip-Constitution that can mean whatever popular liberal culture thinks it should mean at any particular point in time.
But what Biden’s exchanges regarding Thomas and Bork show is that what he really wants is a justice who will use God’s name—“our Creator” as he said—to justify the evil of allowing an unborn child to be killed.
Justice Barrett avoids all the “problems” of being a Catholic who, as Senator Feinstein said, lets the “dogma live loud” in her, and she avoids any question about whether she believes in “good” and “bad” natural law. It’s just not relevant to the “public meaning” of words in 1789 or at the time an amendment was adopted. She just believes that everyone knew what a person and a life were when the Constitution was written, and, of course, that doesn’t bode well for saying a state must allow a doctor to take the life of another person, even if the person is not yet born. She is, indeed, Biden’s worst nightmare as a justice.
David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006.
Two reasons immediately come to mind as to why Judge Barrett’s statement should remove all concerns that she would impose on the Constitution her Catholic beliefs about abortion, which are in line with Catholic doctrine.
The first is that no Supreme Court justice should impose his or her personal beliefs about public policy onto the words in the Constitution. Judges are not supposed to make public policy.
Second, the original public meaning of the words in the Constitution is rather easily discernable from any number of books about the common law written during the colonial period up to and through the ratification of the Constitution. We even have dictionaries from that general period.
The words used in the Constitution did not have variable public meanings depending on whether the reader was Catholic, Protestant, atheistic, or agnostic. Her “public meaning” standard of constitutional interpretation doesn’t leave much room in her judicial philosophy to assign words a meaning she wants them to have.
So, what’s the real problem?
Joe Biden’s View of the Constitution and What Makes for a ‘Good’ Justice
Joe Biden exposed his disdain for the Constitution, and any attempt by a justice to construe its words and phrases according to their original public meaning, in his opposition to the nominations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas believes in natural law, which is a shorthand way of saying that God has imposed a moral law on His creatures. It is a law woven into the moral “nature” of things by God. Biden was concerned that Thomas would use “natural law” or God’s moral law to interpret the words and phrases in the Constitution. This would then mean the end of abortion rights.
But, lo and behold, in opposing the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court a few years earlier, Biden condemned him because he did not believe that the Constitution protects certain "natural" rights, because they are not mentioned in the document itself. Here is what Biden said: "My rights are not derived from any government . . . My rights are because I exist. They were given to me and each of our fellow citizens by our Creator and they represent the essence of human dignity."
What? Which is it Mr. Biden: Do you want the Constitution interpreted according to natural law concepts are not? The answer is simple, though not obvious.
Biden was afraid that Judge Thomas believed in the “bad” kind of natural law. He was afraid Judge Thomas believed in the kind of natural law that means God, as Creator, has indeed imposed timeless moral truths on mankind and has made certain things off-limits. That kind of natural law, for example, would not allow the life of an unborn natural person to be destroyed by an abortionist.
On the other hand, Biden was afraid that Judge Bork didn’t believe in the “good” kind of natural law, the kind in which rights actually inhere in man and God as a Creator is really a meaningless catch-phrase, one that we are used to hearing because it’s in the Declaration of Independence. This kind of natural law is “good” because it does not posit any timeless truths, and, therefore, it doesn’t prevent us from doing anything we want to do, like let a doctor kill a child in the womb.
Joe Biden is a flat-out hypocrite when it comes to the Constitution. He doesn’t want a Constitution that has fixed boundaries by which we can judge and control wanton abuses of defined powers by our representatives. He wants a permission-slip-Constitution that can mean whatever popular liberal culture thinks it should mean at any particular point in time.
But what Biden’s exchanges regarding Thomas and Bork show is that what he really wants is a justice who will use God’s name—“our Creator” as he said—to justify the evil of allowing an unborn child to be killed.
Why Amy Coney Barrett Is Biden’s Worse Nightmare
Justice Barrett avoids all the “problems” of being a Catholic who, as Senator Feinstein said, lets the “dogma live loud” in her, and she avoids any question about whether she believes in “good” and “bad” natural law. It’s just not relevant to the “public meaning” of words in 1789 or at the time an amendment was adopted. She just believes that everyone knew what a person and a life were when the Constitution was written, and, of course, that doesn’t bode well for saying a state must allow a doctor to take the life of another person, even if the person is not yet born. She is, indeed, Biden’s worst nightmare as a justice.
David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006.
