If I were a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would ask Amy Comey Barrett something like this.
You have declared repeatedly that your judgments will be based strictly on the Constitution, and not on any partisan political ideology. The Republicans like to claim that Democrat judges “legislate” from the bench– creating new law based on political considerations rather than the Constitution.
“Spokesmen for A.F.P. [Americans For Prosperity – a Koch Brothers propaganda tool] echo that line, emphasizing that the Koch network isn’t looking for policy outcomes, but for honest jurists who will follow the Constitution to the letter.” NY Times
We are both Christians– you are a Roman Catholic and I am an Evangelical Christian. In a sense, our Constitution, in religion, is the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yet, Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that the wafer and the wine become the body and blood of our Lord Savior Jesus Christ, while we Protestants believe they do not.
Roman Catholics might say, well, I’m right and you’re wrong. They would say the Bible and Jesus Christ– our religious “constitution”– mean only one thing, and that is, that transubstantiation is real and true. Those who appointed you to the Supreme Court of Religion could count on you to vote that way because you hold a partisan, ideological belief.
If there was a Supreme Court of religion, and you were on it, how would you rule? Would you have any regard for the idea that there is legitimate dissent on the issue? Would you say, well, you never know which way I might rule– because there is a large part of the population who don’t believe what you believe the Bible and Jesus Christ teach about the sacrament of the Eucharist. Should we look for someone who believes that we can’t know for sure which side is right, so we have to give due regard and consideration to both possibilities.
In the same way, Republicans believe the Constitution, for one example, prohibits Court prescribed affirmative action programs to address issues of racial or gender discrimination. Many Democrats believe that it does not prohibit such measures.
Should it be legal to fire an employee because he or she is transgender. If we have a personal belief that marriage is always only between one person who is biologically male at birth and one person who is biologically female at birth would we not find some way to interpret the constitution to support that view?
Do you insist that if asked to rule on an issue like that, that we would have no idea of how you would rule?
Convince me that you would judge the matter objectively, without loyalty to the ideology of the people who seek to appoint you to the Supreme Court or your own personal religious beliefs.
Would Barrett insist that she is not loyal to a Republican ideology and would judge the matter as if she had no bias, no ideological preference? If not, and if she insists that the constitution has only one interpretation and she has the one and only correct interpretation, is she not admitting that she is a Republican appointee, and those who wish to appoint her to the Supreme Court fully expect that she will rule in conformity with their political expectations?
At this point she could adopt the Thomas/Kavanagh strategy and just yell at the Democrats and accuse them of bigotry because they don’t like her Roman Catholic religion or– shamelessly– that they are biased against her gender.