Guess what? Judge Amy Coney Barrett is being considered, once again, for an open chair at the Supreme Court, the only branch of the United States government that seems to matter in this tense and divided land.
The odds are good that you have read about this development in the national press or even in the few remaining pages of your local newspaper.
We all know what this means, in terms of press coverage. Many of the same reporters who are perfectly comfortable calling Joe Biden a “devout” Catholic — while his actions clash with church doctrines on marriage and sex — are going to spill oceans of digital ink warning readers about the dangerous dogmas that dwell loudly in the heart and mind of Barrett. I am following all of that in social media and elsewhere.
However, let me start these discussions with a post that might surprise many readers. I would like to praise the recent New York Times story that ran with this headline: “To Conservatives, Barrett Has ‘Perfect Combination’ of Attributes for Supreme Court.” Also, I think it was wise to have a religion-beat professional take part in reporting and writing this story.
I am sure that combatants on both sides of this debate will find some sections in this story rather troubling. But here is the key point I want to make: Unlike many Times stories in recent years, almost all of this material comes from qualified sources (left and right) whose names are attached to their opinions and the information they provided. There are attribution clauses all over the place, just like in Times of old.
Near the top there is this short summary:
“She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political group, who has praised Mr. Trump’s entire shortlist.
The nomination of a judge whom Mr. Trump was quoted last year as “saving” to be Justice Ginsburg’s replacement would almost surely plunge the nation into a bitter and divisive debate over the future of abortion rights, made even more pointed because Judge Barrett would replace a justice who was an unequivocal supporter of those rights. That is a debate Mr. Trump has not shied away from as president, as his judicial appointments and efforts to court conservatives have repeatedly shown.
As you would expect, Barrett’s critics are given plenty of space to respond — which is totally appropriate. It is also good that these voices are clearly identified, along with information about their organizations.
In other words, the story contains evidence of debate on a serious topic in the news. There is no way to cite all the examples of this in the article, since the whole piece is based on solid reporting.
However, I do want to work through a long, long passage that is highly unusual, in terms of some of the “journalism” that we are seeing about Judge Barrett. I will quote the whole passage, while adding a few comments.
In the world of conservative judges, she has particularly strong credentials. Judge Barrett began clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia 22 years ago, and her fellow clerks are quick to say she was his favorite. She graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School and joined the faculty in 2002, earning praise from colleagues as an astute scholar and jurist even if they did not always agree on her jurisprudential premises.
As you would imagine, that paragraph could have been fleshed out with all kinds of direct quotes. But there is enough information provided for readers to find these kinds of statements, if they wish. Moving on:
But it is also her personal qualities that particularly endear Judge Barrett to conservatives across the country.
“Her religious convictions are pro-life, and she lives those convictions,” said Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, a longtime mentor and a U.S. district judge in Minnesota, who like Judge Barrett is Roman Catholic. “The question of what we believe as a religious matter has nothing to do with what we believe a written document says.”
The crucial question of whether Barrett has the ability to recognize legal precedents receives lots of discussion later, backed with strong quotes from documents and qualified experts. This brings us to a strong passage about Barrett, the person.
Read it all:
Judge Barrett and her husband, Jesse Barrett, a former federal prosecutor who is now in private practice, have seven children, all under 20, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome, whom she would carry downstairs by piggyback in the morning. Judge Barrett is known for volunteering at her children’s grade school, and at age 48, she would be the youngest justice on the bench, poised to shape a generation of American law.
She lives in South Bend, Ind., a culturally tight-knit community, like many small college towns in the Midwest. The Barretts are regulars at Notre Dame tailgates and football games. Judge Barrett and other university faculty members have been known to work out together at a CrossFit-type program, sometimes with their former provost.
At least four families in the law school faculty have adopted children, said Carter Snead, a longtime friend of the Barretts and a Notre Dame law professor whose three children are also adopted. “Their family is radically generous and hospitable,” he said.
Judge Barrett became an instant celebrity among the religiously conservative grass-roots in 2017, when Democratic lawmakers questioned her public statements and Catholicism during her confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit. “You have a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail,” Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, told her. “The dogma lives loudly within you.”
A few lines later there is this remarkably understated mention of a topic that has dominated many other news reports:
Judge Barrett’s connection to the small and relatively obscure Christian group People of Praise also attracted attention after a report in 2017 that she and her husband were members. The group grew out of the Catholic charismatic renewal movement that began in the late 1960s and adopted Pentecostal practices such as speaking in tongues, belief in prophecy and divine healing.
I will not be surprised if the Times returns to this subject, as the acidic tide of Barrett coverage continues to rise. If the U.S. Senate holds conventional hearings — Barrett recently endured that maze before receiving her current job — I am sure that this topic will be discussed at length. (I am gathering materials for a post on the subject, as well.)
Let’s hope that the Times team — again with religion-beat pros involved — digs deep enough to discover that, while the activities and beliefs of Catholic charismatics did raise eyebrows, church officials at the national and global levels did extensive investigations and were satisfied with the orthodoxy of the vast majority of these groups.
The key question to watch for when reading future news reports: How were these People of Praise groups viewed by their local bishops and priests? Did Catholics who took part in the movement remain in good standing with church leaders? Were there problems that made it into print sources, as in documents linked to church investigations of charismatic Catholics?
Let me end with a brief note about another Times story linked to Barrett, the report that ran with this headline: "Abortion Was Back-Burnered in the Presidential Race. Not Anymore.”
Want to read a perfect example of Times people slipping into the newspaper’s magisterial-omnipotent anonymous voice? Look for clear attributions in this material:
For months, abortion has been relegated to a back burner in the presidential campaign, eclipsed by a worldwide pandemic, an economic crisis and protests over racial justice. But the death of Justice Ginsburg and the looming confirmation battle to replace her could force the candidates to discuss a volatile issue six weeks before Election Day that carries significant political risks for both sides, even as it energizes portions of their bases.
Mainstream views on abortion are more moderate than those of the activists on either wing, with most Americans saying that abortions should be legal with some restrictions. An all-out fight over abortion could further alienate the more moderate suburban voters both sides are competing for. Democrats especially must navigate their own divisions over how far to push an issue that Mr. Biden has long found personally uncomfortable.
As a rule, it is wise for reporters to avoid building news reports on the word “could,” especially with little or no information about the people who are providing this speculation.
Just saying.
But do read the entire report on Judge Barrett and her family. Let’s hope that we see that old-school standard of on-the-record journalism upheld in future reports.