I recently raised a few eyebrows with a post that — #TriggerWarning — praised The New York Times for a piece about Judge Amy Coney Barrett and why her nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court was so symbolic for cultural and religious conservatives. The headline on that post: “Speaking of people being praised: New York Times offered solid, old-school story about Barrett.”
Why was that Times report so important?
Well, no surprise here, but it was crucial that the team that produced the story include a religion-beat professional — as opposed to coming from the Donald Trump-era political desk. I also noted:
… 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.
Lo and behold, the Times followed up on that story with another religion-team feature that dug deeper on a perfectly valid point that was hinted at in the previous feature. Here’s the double-decker headline on that second story, which drew quite a bit of praise from conservatives on social media:
For Conservative Christian Women, Amy Coney Barrett’s Success Is Personal
Judge Barrett is a new kind of icon for some, one they have not seen before in American cultural and political life.
This is another fine story. However, I have one criticism of it that some may find a bit ironic, or even hard to take seriously.
The story does a fine job of demonstrating that the pro-ACB women are not a simplistic choir of cloned conservatives each with precisely the same point of view in terms of politics and culture. For example, it’s clear that some of these women are not all that fond of Trump the man or even the president. What unites them are commitments to specific values and concerns about specific moral, cultural and political issues.
This is where Judge Barrett comes into the picture. They applaud her because of her personal life, faith and choices, as well as her intellectual prowess and sparkling legal career.
So what is missing? The story briefly mentions the fierce opposition to Barrett, but never digs into the views of progressives — thus allowing Barrett supporters to debate them.
Yes, this is a Times story that needed MORE on-the-record material from the cultural left.
Truth be told, I suspect that, when the newspaper’s political desk kicks into high gear with blow-by-blow coverage of U.S. Senate hearings, readers may not have a chance to hear some of these highly qualified conservative women respond to the concerns raised by Barrett opponents. This glowing story will be forgotten by then.
So what was the Big Idea in this growing report? Here is a lengthy passage that states the thesis:
Judge Barrett’s nomination pleased many conservatives, who see in her legal credentials and judicial philosophy the potential for her to be the next Antonin Scalia, a solidly conservative presence on the court for decades.
But for many conservative Christian women, the thrill of the nomination is more personal. Judge Barrett, for them, is a new kind of icon — one they have not seen before in American cultural and political life: a woman who is both unabashedly ambitious and deeply religious, who has excelled at the heights of a demanding profession even as she speaks openly about prioritizing her conservative Catholic faith and family. Judge Barrett has seven children, including two children adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome.
“I found some personal inspiration in Ginsburg — you couldn’t not,” said Mary Hallan FioRito, a conservative Catholic lawyer who graduated from law school in the early 1990s, referring to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “She made me know this is possible. It won’t be easy, but it’s possible. Amy Barrett is the perfect replacement for Ginsburg because she, too, in a different way, is saying, ‘This is possible.’”
Was there anything here about the People of Praise controversy?
Though Judge Barrett’s nomination has inspired pride in Catholic circles, it has also generated enthusiasm among conservative evangelical Protestants. Judge Barrett belongs to an ecumenical Christian community in South Bend, Ind., whose worship practices draw from some Protestant traditions.
“Protestant” traditions? Well, maybe. However, when one looks at the global impact of the Catholic charismatic movement, I think it more than stands on its own.
It is certainly true that many evangelicals are enthusiastic about the #ACB nomination. However, I am not sure that this has much to do her ties to an ecumenical charismatic group.
The story, as you would expect, also mentions the infamous “dogma lives loudly” controversy and its impact on supporters of the nominee.
Judge Barrett first came to national attention in 2017, when Mr. Trump nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Several senators directly questioned her in her confirmation hearing about whether her Catholic faith would influence her decisions from the bench. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Senator Dianne Feinstein told her.
That moment was galvanizing for women who saw themselves in Judge Barrett. “Among Catholic professional women who are moms, it just instantly resonated,” said Ms. FioRito, who lives in Chicago. “There’s such a groundswell for Amy, and a lot of it came out of that anger and resentment for how she was treated.”
This was where I wish the Times had quoted some of the views of fierce Barrett critics, putting their words and concerns on the record in this context and, thus, allowing some old-school-journalism debate on the specifics. That was a strong point, as I mentioned, of the earlier Times story.
When you look at the credentials of some of the women quoted in this second feature, it’s clear that they would be more than qualified to discuss some of the anti-Barrett broadsides.
Just saying.