W.Han Christine Baglow moved from New Orleans to South Bend, Indiana. Two years ago, she found herself at a dinner party with a woman with a huge resume: a former Supreme Court clerk, U.S.A. District Judge Notre Dame Law School Professor Appeals Court for Seventh Circuit.
This lady was Amy Connie Barrett, and she and the heron were mutual friends.
The judge came in as “tremendously friendly,” Baglow said. “I found her to be a very kind and thoughtful person. Very kind and honest.
“I had someone at least a degree or education at that table, but listening politely and getting my opinion, especially on matters relating to children and adolescents, I thought it was great.”
Baglow, 49, is the director of youth ministry at St. Joseph Catholic Church in South Bend, which is attended by Barrett and his family.
“Not everyone with her level of education responds that way and she certainly did,” Buglow said.
Now, America is absorbing the news of Ruth Bader Jensberg’s death, amid speculation about who will change liberal justice and when Barrett’s name came up.
Donald Trump tweeted that he would choose Ginsberg’s replacement “without delay”, then said he would choose a woman.
But the presidential election is on November 3 and early voting has begun. In a deeply divided country, the rush of Senate Republicans to fill Supreme Court vacancies has become yet another lightning rod. On Sunday, Democratic nominee Joe Biden called Trump’s plan to fill the Ginsburg seat immediately an “abuse of power.”
Barrett has little experience of storms. She was on Trump’s list of potential nominees in 2018 as she considered who would replace retired Judge Anthony Kennedy. But the president had other plans for Barrett.
“I’m saving it for Jensberg,” Trump said in an Axis report last year.
In Barrett, 48, Ru serv Chusto sees a young, strict constructionist who interprets the constitution according to the intentions of his authors – a jurist in the ghat of Antonin Scalia, Ru Con Chusto Justice (and a close friend of Jensberg), who died in February 2016, and for whom Clark does.
The devout Catholic mother of seven – she and her husband Jesse M. Barrett, who has five biological offspring and two adopted from Haiti – is seen as a potential successor to Ginsberg who has also raised concerns among progressives. Many fear that if confirmed on the bench, Barrett would vote to overturn the 1973 ruling, which protects the right to abortion.
Barrett opposes abortion. And she has already raised questions about her faith and the role she plays in the law.
During the 2017 confirmation hearing, California Senator Diane Finstein commented: “Your intelligence is loud.”
Some said the comment was discriminatory against athletes. But some who knew Barrett said the interrogation went to the heart of becoming a good candidate for his Supreme Court, as his answers showed an indifferent disposition and a calm demeanor.
“Some senators questioned whether her religious beliefs could affect the way she interpreted the law,” said Paolo G. Carroza, a law professor at Notre Dame. “I just got, honestly, kind of ridiculous.
“Knowing her as well as seeing the way I walk and the way she drives, the effect her religious beliefs have on her as a judge is that they give her the humility to say,‘ Everything I do Just about the law and about the basic values of maintaining the credibility of the law and the legal system and anything else and about the interpretation of the law. “
As Barrett’s star has risen, with the media and Democrats focusing on his views on abortion, others in the Notre Dame community have become frustrated. Alumnus Alex Blair, now a Chicago-based firm Segal McCambridge Singer and attorney for Mahoney, cited a comment he made to the Guardian to the South Band Tribune.
“It’s been very vague to see someone smarter than me how she can vote on an issue when she’s more than that,” he said.
Caroza remembers Barrett as a top law student when he joined faculty at Notre Dame in 1996. He said he found such a question unreasonable from the Senate Democrats, in which Barrett could not write his own religion in his opinion and was not one to make it a matter of religion.
“I don’t think it’s unfair to ask a judicial appointee about their religious beliefs,” he said. “If someone says, ‘I interpret the law according to what the Qur’an says or what the Bible says,’ is something we don’t want in our republic.”
“What is inappropriate in her case is that she was only pointed out on the basis of knowing that she is a religious person, instead there is no evidence in the things she wrote or the way she behaved that could interfere with the administration. There is a law.”
.
