Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyHillicon Valley: Subpoenas for Facebook, Google and Twitter on the cards | Wray rebuffs mail-in voting conspiracies | Reps. raise mass surveillance concernsTrump faces tricky choice on Supreme Court pickFBI director warns that Chinese hackers are still targeting US COVID-19 researchMORE (R-Mo.), a rising star on the Judiciary Committee and outspoken critic of Roe v. Wade, sent a letter Saturday to Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerPelosi slams Trump executive order on pre-existing conditions: It ‘isn’t worth the paper it’s signed on’3 reasons why Biden is misreading the politics of court packingCruz blocks amended resolution honoring Ginsburg over language about her dying wishMORE (D-N.Y.) warning him and other Democrats to refrain from criticizing Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on the basis of her Catholicism.
Hawley, who has advocated for a nominee with a record of skepticism toward Roe v. Wade, called on Democrats to steer clear of any attacks that target Barretts religious beliefs.
I call on you and every member of the Democratic Caucus to publicly reject Senator Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinTrump plans to pick Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg on courtTrump faces tricky choice on Supreme Court pickThe Hill’s Morning Report – Sponsored by Facebook – Trump previews SCOTUS nominee as ‘totally brilliant’MOREs egregious personal attacks on Judge Barretts Christian faith during her previous confirmation hearings, and to pledge you will abstain from that kind of anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-faith vitriol in the hearings to come, Hawley wrote in a letter to Schumer.
Hawleys statement is a reference to Barretts 2017 Senate confirmation hearing for her appointment to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told the nominee: The dogma lives loudly within you.
Barrett was pressed by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee over whether her Roman Catholic faith would unduly influence her decisions.
Catholic teaching strongly rejects abortion and frowns upon the use of birth control to prevent contraception.
Democrats suspect that Barretts religious beliefs may affect her view of Roe v. Wade, which the judge suggested in a 2003 legal article was an erroneous decision.
Hawley noted in his Saturday letter that Sen. Dick DurbinRichard (Dick) Joseph DurbinThe Hill’s Morning Report – Sponsored by Facebook – Trump previews SCOTUS nominee as ‘totally brilliant’Feinstein ‘surprised and taken aback’ by suggestion she’s not up for Supreme Court fightGrand jury charges no officers in Breonna Taylor deathMORE (D-Ill.), another member of the Judiciary Committee, asked Barrett during her 2017 confirmation hearing if she was an orthodox Catholic and that Sen.Mazie HironoMazie Keiko HironoManchin defends Supreme Court candidate Barrett: ‘It’s awful to bring in religion’Democrats shoot down talk of expanding Supreme CourtDemocrats unveil plan declaring racism a public health issueMORE (D-Hawaii), who also sits on the panel, suggested she would be a “Catholic judge.
Your caucus has sought to return to the days of religious tests, to exclude people of faith from public office and from the public square, Hawley wrote to Schumer.
The GOP senator asserted that Senate Democrats have attacked and attempted to disqualify nominees by questioning their views on the nature of sin, their beliefs about heaven and hell, their memberships in religious organizations, and the activities of their churches.
But our Constitution bans religious tests. Democrats offensive and wholly inappropriate attacks must not be repeated in this confirmation process, he wrote.
A recent New York Times profile of Barrett noted her previous career teaching law at the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic school, and her reported affiliation with People of Praise, a group that grew from the Catholic charismatic renewal movement and is associated with speaking in tongues, belief in prophecy and divine healing.
During a 2006 commencement, the Times reported, Barrett told graduating students: If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and service God you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.
Senate Republicans anticipate Barretts Catholic faith will again become front-and-center in the Supreme Court confirmation battle.
Hawley on Saturday warned against what he called a growing tide of anti-religious animus on the Left.
These attacks and insinuations remain disgusting. Religious bigotry has no place in the United States Senate. I ask that you and all your colleagues reject your past acts of intolerance, and commit to considering Judge Barretts nomination on the merits of her qualifications, not by slandering her faith, he wrote.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDemocratic senator to party: ‘A little message discipline wouldn’t kill us’House to vote on resolution affirming peaceful transition of powerRepublican lawyers brush off Trump’s election commentsMOREs (R-Ky.) communication center on Saturday circulated a memo titled: Will Democrats continue to attack Judge Barretts religions?
The document highlighted comments by Feinstein, Durbin and Hirono during Barretts 2017 confirmation process.
Feinstein told Barrett at the time that many Democrats have this very uncomfortable feeling that, you know, dogma and law are two different things.
And I think whatever religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different, she said.
Asked last week by a reporter whether Barretts religious view should be off-limits during the confirmation process, Hirono told CNN: No.
Democrats are focused on Barretts 2018 dissent after the full 7th Circuit chose not to review a three-judge panels ruling that struck down an Indiana law prohibiting abortions performed because of the sex or disability of the fetus.
Barrett suggested in the dissent that she may have ruled the state law constitutional.
Democrats are also looking at a dissent Barrett joined in October that attempted to reconsider a three-judge panel ruling that affirmed a preliminary injunction against a law that would have required women under age 18 to obtain parental consent to get an abortion.