Amy Coney Barrett may be a theocrat, but hey, she ain't supportin' Shuhreeuh law, now is she?

These two articles speak volumes about how discombobulated they are about having a far-right Christian theocrat as a Supreme Court Justice:

• Jack Jenkins, Amy Coney Barrett, controversial Catholic, re-emerges as potential Supreme Court pick 09/22/2020 RNS/National Catholic Reporter 09/22/2020
• Manu Raju, Democrats weigh how to handle Trump's potential Supreme Court pick after past flap over Barrett's faith CNN 09/23/2020

If Manuz Raju's CNN report is correct, then the discussion among Senate Democrats about how to fight Trump's authoritarian, anti-women's-right, Christian supremacist nominee for the Supreme Court - whoever that may turn out to be - is going something like this:

"We need to surrender when the hearing on the nominee starts."

"No, we need to surrender as soon as the nomination is announced."

"No, that's just unacceptable! We need to surrender right now and brag about how responsible we're being about all this!

"Absolutely not!! We have to surrender immediately, pledge to support whatever person or inanimate object Trump nominates even before the announcement, a pass a censure resolution ín the Senate against any Democratic Senator who refuses to do so!"

The Beltway assumption right now seems to be that the nominee will be Amy Coney Barrett. The Democrats are trembling in fear that the Republicans might accuse them of questioning her (rightwing Catholic) religion. As Raju reports:

In a tense exchange between Amy Coney Barrett and Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2017, the California Democrat sharply questioned whether the judicial nominee could separate her Catholic views from her legal opinions.

"The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you," Feinstein pointedly said. "And that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country."

The exchange became a rallying cry for Republicans -- and quickly put Democrats on the defensive as the GOP accused them of creating a religious litmus test for President Donald Trump's nominee to sit on the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats said the exchange was in reference to Barrett's own writings on the topic that had prompted questions from both parties -- and concerns from progressives that she would chip away at abortion rights.

Now Barrett appears to be the front-runner for Trump's Supreme Court nominee. And Democrats are beginning to discuss how to avoid such pitfalls when they face off against the President's nominee in confirmation hearings as soon as next month, recognizing that's likely their lone shot at derailing a conservative jurist who could tilt the ideological balance of the court for decades to come.

"I never really focused on religious beliefs. They are really, in my view, irrelevant to her qualification," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday. "Everybody's entitled to believe or practice and worship as they like. My focus is on substantive issues."

Anyone remotely familiar with the Republicans' stand on Islamic Sharia religious law - which I'd be surprised if there are five Republicans in either House of Congress who could give a reasonable accurate description of what that is - will be surprised to hear that Republicans are indifferent to the religious views of office-holders. Liz Farmer reported in 2014 (Alabama Joins Wave of States Banning Foreign Laws Governing 11/04/ 2014):

Alabama has become the seventh state to ban Sharia law via a ballot measure that prohibits its courts from considering foreign, international or religious law. ...

Six states have similar foreign law bans, with North Carolina's enacted most recently last year. The others are Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota and Tennessee. Missouri also passed a measure banning foreign law last year, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill because of its potential impact on international adoptions. Oklahoma's voters approved a ban, which explicitly referred to Sharia law, in 2010. But this year, it was struck down by a federal appeals court for being discriminatory. Still, the issue has permeated across the country: All but 16 states have considered such a measure in the past five years. ...

Opponents to such bans say they are based on stereotypes and a fundamental misunderstanding about Islam. In 2013, a Brennan Center for Justice report called the bans anti-Muslim and cast them as “thinly concealed attempts” to demoralize the faith. The report warned that the bans can have unintended consequences like disrupting marital prenuptial agreements or invalidating court decisions in other states. Especially in divorce and contract law, religious beliefs (like Sharia, orthodox Jewish or Catholic canon) can factor into how judges or arbitrators preside over a dispute. For example, a couple may sign a prenuptial agreement that requires them to go to an imam and that a religious leader must conduct the mediation. Alabama’s ballot measure nullifies that requirement. [my emphasis]

But freedom of religion and the separation of church and state are fundamental Constitutional principles. Whether a Supreme Court Justice accepts that as valid is an extremely relevant question. John Kennedy's statement that basically laid to rest Protestant attacks on his "papism," i.e., being a Catholic Christian, is considered a classic retort to that kind of criticism. Though the statement itself deserves wider attention than any Republican will give it in 2020 (Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion NPR 12/05/2007):

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. ...

It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril. ...

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same. [my emphasis]

Would Amy Coney Barret commit to any such clear statement of her stand on religious freedom? Would any Republican currently serving in Congress?

As it turns out, the religion-related issue that nominal Democrat Dianne Feinstein challenged Barrett on in 2017 was a classic instance of a conservative Democrat being too clever by half and flubbing the whole thing. Jack Jenkins explains:

During her 2017 confirmation hearing to serve on the 7th Circuit Court, some pointed to a 1998 law-review article Barrett co-wrote with John Garvey, then her Notre Dame professor and now president of the Catholic University of America. The two argued that "Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty."

This approach potentially challenges a mindset invoked by some Catholic politicians regarding intersections of faith and public policy — namely, that one's personal faith should not, whenever possible, preclude one from performing a duty that stands to impact the general public. During Barrett's confirmation hearing, California Senator Dianne Feinstein zeroed in on her "previous speeches," insisting that religious dogma is not the same thing as law.

"The dogma lives loudly within you," Feinstein said to Barrett.

In response, Barrett told Feinstein, "It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."

Nonetheless, similar critiques will no doubt be leveled at Barrett should she face the judicial committee again immediately preceding or after the presidential election.

For Feinstein, that gave her a way to raise an issue about Barrett's judicial philosophy around a statement that suggested she would not support the death penalty. Do that let Feinstein make Barrett sound "soft" on the death penalty. Feinstein's "The dogma lives loudly within you," though, will not go down as one of the most historic Senatorial statements. And, now, from what CNN reported, Democratic Senators are thinking that any mention of church-state issues in connection with Barrett is now politically toxic.

Then there's this (Laurie Goodstein, Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious Group New York Times 09/28/2020):

Ms. Barrett told the senators [in the 2017 hearing] that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge. But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning. [my emphasis]

Of course not. Diane Feinstein was too busy bungling a (legitimate) question relating to the death penalty. Goodstein continues:

Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.

Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality. The scholars said in interviews that while there certainly was no religious test for office, it would have been relevant for the senators to examine what it means for a judicial nominee to make an oath to a group that could wield significant authority over its members’ lives. [my emphasis]

If Barrett becomes Trump's Supreme Court nominee, it would be unusual malpractice even by current Democratic Party standards for them not to make a big deal out of this.

See also:

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Amy Coney Barrett (2017)

Michael Sean Winters, Raising questions about Amy Barrett's beliefs is not an anti-popery riot National Catholic Reporter 07/06/2018

Heidi Schlumpf, Prospective Supreme Court nominee puts spotlight on People of Praise National Catholic Reporter 07/06/2018

Amy Howe, Potential nominee profile: Amy Coney Barrett, SCOTUSblog 07/04/2018

Ruth Graham, Amy Coney Barrett Is Allegedly a Member of a Religious Group That’s Been Called a “Cult” Slate 07/03/2018

Cathleen Kaveny, No, Dianne Feinstein is not an anti-Catholic bigot Washington Post 09/21/2017