NR Webathon

NR Has Had Amy Barrett’s Back Since 2017 

Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett reacts during the final minutes of her testimony on the third day of her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, October 14, 2020. (Susan Walsh/Pool via Reuters)
And when it comes to Kamala Harris's discrimination against Catholics, we've had her number from the get-go.

Judicial confirmation fights are among the most interesting occasions to be a political opinion writer. It’s at times like this that I’m especially grateful to work at National Review, where I’m permitted and encouraged to write about the issues that are most important to me, issues that matter to conservatives and to our readers. Providing that sort of timely, careful reporting and analysis takes plenty of work, and that’s why we’re counting on you to consider supporting our efforts.

When President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, I had been at National Review for only a year, but I had the opportunity to break a story that is still making headlines to this day: when Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein criticized Barrett’s Catholic faith, saying, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Ever since then, National Review has been at the forefront of calling attention to progressives who use a judicial nominee’s religious faith to attempt to disqualify the nominee from serving on the bench. As Barrett’s 2017 hearings continued, I kept up my reporting, pressing the offices of Democratic senators to explain why they were scrutinizing her Catholic beliefs.

In 2019, I wrote about how Democratic senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono grilled Brian Buescher, a Catholic judicial nominee, over his membership in the Knights of Columbus and suggested that it made him unfit to serve. I noted at the time that perhaps Democrats were pioneering a strategy to use against Barrett should she ever be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Now that day has come, and we at NR have been working harder than ever to bring you the best information about this important fight — not only over whether the eminently qualified Barrett will be confirmed to the Court but also over whether Democrats will be able to continue making these sorts of attacks.

I’m far from the only one of our writers who has been covering Barrett’s confirmation with intense focus, but I’ve done my part, writing about Kamala Harris’s anti-Catholic bigotry toward Knights of Columbus members, the inappropriate questions Harris has posed to nominees about their religious beliefs, and the many times that Democrats have zeroed in on religion as a way of scrutinizing conservative judges.

I’ve also pushed back against the narrative that Barrett’s involvement in the lay Christian group People of Praise constitutes membership in an abusive, ultraconservative cult or that her membership is evidence of anything other than her desire to practice her faith. I’ve pointed out that, if Barrett were a liberal, left-wing feminists would hold her up as an icon. Instead, as I wrote in another piece, feminists denigrate her because her life story illustrates that a woman can be highly accomplished and have a successful career without sacrificing her desire to have a large, loving family.

And this week, I’ve focused on covering the confirmation hearings, capturing one of Barrett’s most poignant comments on the issue of racism and refuting Senator Cory Booker’s lies about Roe v. Wade, among other stories.

Without National Review, these and other crucial moments would pass without mention. All of our newspapers and the websites of every major publication should be delivering this kind of careful, accurate reporting. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. That’s why we need your support to keep our difficult, essential work going, and we’re grateful for your continued generosity.