Does Judge Amy Coney Barrett deserve to be abbreviated ?
JFK, LBJ, RBG, FDR and even newcomer AOC have earned shortcuts that recognize their unique and (mostly) positive contributions to U.S. civil society. Judge Barrett has not got the stature or the virtues to be up there, not even among the less well-used initials of initiates into this American Hall of renown—HST and HRC.
Judge Barrett needs to be dealt with, briefly. Unlike Antonin Scalia (AKA, Jabba The Hutt) whose biases were partially hidden under many bushel baskets of high-sounding nonsense, Barrett ‘s version of law is sharia.
That is, Justice Scalia’s legal pose was to pretend that he could intuit original intent from the tea leaves of the text of the constitution. Those figments could be counted on to arrange themselves into his predetermined views. For Scalia and other so-called originalists, the presumptive text is the constitution and legal precedent, not the bible, the Patrologia Latina, or the Talmud for that matter. It is, however, no accident that natural law, and constitutional law as they construe it accord with the religious teachings and dogma they subscribe to.
Judge Barrett pretends to be cut from the same cloth as Scalia. When she makes statements, however, like “a legal career is but a means to an end… and that end is building the kingdom of God,” it is clear that she is not as clever as her role model. Her stated goal may well be the goal of canon law but it stands in stark opposition to constitutional law. She should read the document, at least the preamble and the Bill of Rights, which Scalia read carefully enough to hide his deviations from constitutional values.
Scalia at least pretended that the purpose of a life in law was to create a civil society consistent with our founding document. RBG saw her faith as requiring the pursuit of justice, not making the U.S.A. ground zero for Moshiach by establishing Halakha as the replacement for the constitution. Judge Barrett is certainly free to believe what she wants to believe, to practice her faith as she understands it, but she is not free to impose that faith on the rest of us, or re-write the constitution to accommodate any faith.