What Supreme Court contender Amy Coney Barrett has said about abortion and 9 other issues

Maureen Groppe | IndyStar

Show Caption Hide Caption Who will replace Justice Kennedy? Did Trump interview these 4 people? President Trump is moving full steam ahead to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing he's already interviewed four candidates. Nathan Rousseau Smith has the story.

WASHINGTON —

Barrett became a cause celebre among conservatives after her 2017 confirmation hearing to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when Democrats questioned whether she could separate her Catholic beliefs from her judicial opinions.

Barrett's past comments on abortion, how a judge's personal beliefs come into play, and when the Supreme Court should overturn past decisions will now be scrutinized even more.

Teacher of the Year: 10 things to know about Amy Coney Barrett, a top contender for the Supreme Court

Supreme Court opening: Indiana's Amy Coney Barrett a favorite of grassroots conservatives

Here's what Barrett has said about on those, and other, issues.

What she has said about judge’s ideological views:

Barrett’s Catholicism — and how it could affect her judicial opinions — was the hot topic at her 2017 confirmation hearing.

"The dogma lives loudly within you,” California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in a quote that Barrett’s supporters put on coffee mugs and T-shirts.

Barrett was grilled about a law review article she co-wrote during law school on whether Catholic judges have the moral obligation to recuse themselves from enforcing the death penalty.

Barrett said she stands by the article's core proposition, "which is that if there is ever a conflict between a judge's personal conviction and that judge's duty under the rule of law, that it is never, ever permissible for that judge to follow their personal convictions in the decisions of the case rather than what the law requires."

The article she co-wrote states that while Catholic judges “are not forbidden to have anything to do with the death penalty,” a judge’s “cooperation with evil passes acceptable limits” when he sentences a defendant to death.

Barrett was asked how she would apply that same standard to judges who believe abortion is “always immoral.” Barrett said she’s never analyzed that question.

What she has said about Roe v. Wade:

In a speech Barrett gave at Notre Dame on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, she declared it “very unlikely” the court will ever overturn Roe’s core protection of abortion rights, according to coverage of her remarks in university publications.

“The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand,” the student newspaper The Observer quoted her saying. “The controversy right now is about funding. It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.”

But she wrote in a 2013 Texas Law Review article that the public’s response to controversial cases like Roe v. Wade “reflects public rejection” of the idea that legal precedent “can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.”

What she has said about overturning precedent:

During her confirmation hearing, Democratic senators tried to pin down Barrett on when the Supreme Court should overturn past decisions. They noted that she wrote in the 2013 law review article that "I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.”

In that article, Barrett did not include Roe v. Wade in a “hit list” of “super precedents” -- cases “that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with the interpretive premises from which the precedent proceeds."

Barrett said she was quoting a list composed by others, and she has never offered her own definition or analyzed whether any particular case qualifies.

“I think that the line that other nominees before the committee have drawn in refraining from comment about their agreement or disagreement with the merits or demerits of any Supreme Court precedent is a prudent one,” she testified.

What she has said about the Affordable Care Act:

Barrett wrote in 2017 that Chief Justice John Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning in order to save it. Roberts creatively interpreted as a tax the law’s penalty on those who don’t buy insurance, allowing the court to uphold the constitutionality of the law, Barrett said.

She also criticized the Obama administration’s method for giving employees of religious-affiliated organizations access to birth control without having the institutions pay for it. Religiously-affiliated charities and universities were allowed to shift the cost on to the health insurance provider. But a letter Barrett and more than 300 academics signed in 2012 said Obama’s accommodation “changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty.”

What she has said about whether Trump can pardon himself and more:

During her confirmation hearing, Democrats tried to get Barrett to comment on some of Trump’s controversial actions, including his pardoning of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, his attacks against federal judges and his claim that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in the 2016 election. Barrett said those are political issues “about which I cannot ethically opine” under the code of conduct for U.S. judges and nominees.

Asked whether a president has the ability to pardon himself, Barret said she hasn’t studied that issue.

Whether she thinks she was nominated for the federal bench because she opposes abortion:

Trump said during the campaign that he would put “pro-life justices on the court.” His list of potential nominees that he drew off of has the approval of pro-life groups. Asked by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, if she thinks she was nominated for the Seventh Circuit position because of her “strongly held moral convictions regarding abortion,” Barrett said she did not know “what those involved in the selection process may or may not have thought about how I would resolve cases involving abortion.”

Whether she accepted money to address a “hate group”:

When she was a law professor, Barrett gave an hour presentation on constitutional law to a legal fellowship program sponsored by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative religious liberty advocacy group. The Southern Poverty Law Center has called Alliance Defending Freedom an “anti-LGBT hate group” that supports recriminalization of homosexuality, has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and has worked on legislation that would allow gays and lesbians to be denied goods and services on the basis of religion.

Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that she doesn’t know whether the Southern Poverty Law Center’s description is accurate and “I understand its characterization to be a matter of public controversy.”

What she has said about gay marriage:

In 2015, Barrett signed a letter to Catholic bishops that, among other things, affirmed the church’s teaching “on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman” and on “the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women.”

But she told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the church’s view is irrelevant to the legal question of the right of same-sex couples to marry.

“In the context of same-sex marriages and in any context, my religious beliefs really would not bear on that at all,” she testified. “I think one of the great traditions in this country is that judges participate in the law, participate in the decision of cases, and rule even when they disagree with the outcome.”

Which justices she most admires:

Barrett singled out three justices when asked by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., to name a justice she is most similar to in views and approach to the job. Barrett said she admires former Justice Antonin Scalia for his fluidity of thought, clarity of writing, and “careful attention to statutory and contextual text.” She praised former Chief Justice John Marshall’s “commitment to consensus and collegiality.” And she singled out Justice Elena Kagan for “the way in which she is able to bring the knowledge and skill she acquired as an academic to the practical resolution of disputes.” (Kagan, like Barrett, had not served on the bench when nominated to the federal courts.)

Her explanation for why an appellate judge must be brave:

Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that a good judge must be willing to take the consequences of an unpopular ruling. As an example of a brave ruling, she cited Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, the court’s 1896 “separate but equal” decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation in public facilities. Harlan, the lone dissenter, said the Louisiana law that was upheld was “hostile to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution.” (Barrett noted that it took more than 50 years for Harlan’s view to prevail in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.)