An Open Letter to Judge Amy Coney Barrett From Your Notre Dame Colleagues

October 10, 2020

Dear Judge Barrett,

We write to you as fellow faculty members at the University of Notre Dame.

We congratulate you on your nomination to the United States Supreme Court. An appointment to the Court is the crowning achievement of a legal career and speaks to the commitments you have made throughout your life. And while we are not pundits, from what we read your confirmation is all but assured.

That is why it is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.

We ask that you take this unprecedented step for three reasons.

First, voting for the next president is already underway. According to the United States Election Project (https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html), more than seven million people have already cast their ballots, and millions more are likely to vote before election day. The rushed nature of your nomination process, which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics, may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice. You are not, of course, responsible for the anti-democratic machinations driving your nomination. Nor are you complicit in the Republican hypocrisy of fast-tracking your nomination weeks before a presidential election when many of the same senators refused to grant Merrick Garland so much as a hearing a full year before the last election. However, you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers. We ask that you honor the democratic process and insist the hearings be put on hold until after the voters have made their choice. Following the election, your nomination would proceed, or not, in accordance with the wishes of the winning candidate. 

Next, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish was that her seat on the court remain open until a new president was installed. At your nomination ceremony at the White House, you praised Justice Ginsburg as “a woman of enormous talent and consequence, whose life of public service serves as an example to us all.” Your nomination just days after Ginsburg’s death was unseemly and a repudiation of her legacy. Given your admiration for Justice Ginsburg, we ask that you repair the injury to her memory by calling for a pause in the nomination until the next president is seated.

Finally, your nomination comes at a treacherous moment in the United States. Our politics are consumed by polarization, mistrust, and fevered conspiracy theories. Our country is shaken by pandemic and economic suffering. There is violence in the streets of American cities. The politics of your nomination, as you surely understand, will further inflame our civic wounds, undermine confidence in the court, and deepen the divide among ordinary citizens, especially if you are seated by a Republican Senate weeks before the election of a Democratic president and congress. You have the opportunity to offer an alternative to all that by demanding that your nomination be suspended until after the election. We implore you to take that step.

We’re asking a lot, we know. Should Vice-President Biden be elected, your seat on the court will almost certainly be lost. That would be painful, surely. Yet there is much to be gained in risking your seat. You would earn the respect of fair-minded people everywhere. You would provide a model of civic selflessness. And you might well inspire Americans of different beliefs toward a renewed commitment to the common good.

We wish you well and trust you will make the right decision for our nation.

Yours in Notre Dame,

John Duffy, English  

Douglass Cassel, Emeritus, Law School

Barbara J, Fick, Emerita, Law School

Fernand N. Dutile, Professor of Law Emeritus

Joseph Bauer, Emeritus, Law School

Jimmy Gurulé, Professor of Law.  

Thomas Kselman, Emeritus, History

Catherine E. Bolten, Anthropology and Peace Studies

Karen Graubart, History and Gender Studies

Margaret Dobrowolska, Physics

Aedín Clements, Hesburgh Libraries

Cheri Smith, Hesburgh Libraries

Antonio Delgado, Physics

Atalia Omer, Peace Studies

Eileen Hunt Botting, Political Science

Jason A. Springs, Peace Studies

David Hachen, Sociology

Manoel Couder, Physics

Jacek Furdyna, Physics

Carmen Helena Tellez, Music

Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Biological Sciences, Philosophy

John T. Fitzgerald, Theology

Debra Javeline, Political Science 

Philippe Collon, Physics

Cara Ocobock, Anthropology

Amy Mulligan, Irish, Medieval Studies and Gender Studies

Stephen M. Fallon, Program of Liberal Studies and Dept of English

Jessica Shumake, University Writing Program and Gender Studies

Mandy L. Havert, Hesburgh Libraries

Dana Villa, Political Science

Stephen M. Hayes, Emeritus, Hesburgh Libraries

Catherine Perry, Emerita, Romance Languages & Literatures

Olivier Morel, Film, Television, and Theatre.

Darlene Catello, Music

Encarnación Juárez-Almendros, Emerita, Romance Languages & Literatures

James Sterba, Philosophy

Laura Bayard, Emerita, Hesburgh Libraries

Susan Sheridan, Anthropology

Mary E. Frandsen, Music

Mark Golitko, Anthropology

Christopher Ball, Anthropology

Gail Bederman, History

G. Margaret Porter, Emerita, Hesburgh Libraries

Cecilia Lucero, Center for University Advising

Peri E. Arnold, Emeritus, Political Science

Amitava Krishna Dutt, Political Science

Julia Marvin, Program of Liberal Studies

Julia Adeney Thomas, History

Michael C. Brownstein, East Asian Languages & Cultures

Christopher Liebtag Miller, Medieval Institute

Maxwell Johnson, Theology

John Sitter, Emeritus, English

Robert Norton, German

Hye-jin Juhn, Hesburgh Libraries

Denise M. Della Rossa, German

Sotirios A. Barber, Political Science

Pamela Robertson Wojcik, Film, TV and Theatre

Jeff Diller, Mathematics

Ann Mische, Sociology and Peace Studies

Zygmunt Baranski, Romance Languages & Literatures

Robert R. Coleman, Emeritus, Art History

William Collins Donahue, German, FTT, & Keough

Sarah McKibben, Irish Language and Literature

George A. Lopez, emeritus, Kroc Institute

Mark Roche, German

Nelson Mark, Economics

Vittorio Hosle, German, Philosophy and Political Science

Tobias Boes, German 

A. Nilesh Fernando, Economics

Fred Dallmayr, Emeritus, Philosophy and Political Science

Greg Kucich, English

Kate Marshall, English

Mark A. Sanders, English

Christopher Hamlin, History

Meredith S. Chesson, Anthropology

Ricardo Ramirez, Political Science

Stephen Fredman, Emeritus, English

Dan Graff, History and the Higgins Labor Program

Henry Weinfield, Program of Liberal Studies (Emeritus)

Mary R. D’Angelo, Theology (Emerita)

Asher Kaufman, Kroc Institute, History

Stephen J. Miller, Music

Janet A. Kourany, Philosophy and Gender Studies

Michelle Karnes, English

Jill Godmilow, Emerita, Film, Television & Theatre

Mary Beckman, Emerita, Center for Social Concerns

Clark Power, Program of Liberal Studies

Richard Williams, Sociology

Benedict Giamo, Emeritus, American Studies

Ernesto Verdeja, Political Science and Peace Studies 

Catherine Schlegel, Classics

Margaret A. Doody, English, Professor Emerita 

Marie Collins Donahue, Eck Institute of Global Health

 David C. Leege, Emeritus, Political Science

Xavier Creary, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Emeritus)
 
Romana Huk, PhD, English
 
Joseph M. Parent, Professor of Political Science
 
Mary Celeste Kearney, Film, Television, and Theatre, and Gender Studies
 
Richard Sheehan, Ph.D., Department of Finance, Mendoza College of Business
 
Marty Wolfson, Emeritus, Economics
 
Michael Kackman, PhD, Department of Film, Television, and Theatre
 
Ann Marie Power, PhD, Sociology

Author: darinljensen

I am a writer and a teacher who is interested in issues of class and social justice.

550 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Judge Amy Coney Barrett From Your Notre Dame Colleagues”

    1. 102 out of 3000 workers at the university is a very small number. I guess she is overwhelmingly liked by her peers.

    2. Yes, this faculty is a wretched hive of leftist villainy, right? It’s all about abortion, and all these wretches have the blood of the unborn on them!!! Shame on you!!!

    3. I cheerfully applaud the Scholarly Notre Dame Faculty for their rightful letter asking Judge Barrett to request that her vote be delayed until after the election. The content of the Notre Dame Faculty letter speaks volumes of fairness and what is needed for a better America. As a Faculty Academic myself my continued faith in the Academic Community remains very strong. However, unfortunately Ms. Barrett obviously has no intention whatsoever of honoring that letter. Proof is that she has sat through the Senate confirmation hearings with determination and resolve to survive. There is no miracle divine enough no collective Academic Scholarship influential enough to change her self-righteous mind. Rather, her goal is to live her dream of fingerprinting Supreme Court Jurisprudence with her name and her legacy. Indeed she is focused on her destiny as a U. S. Supreme Court Justice no matter the historical cost to this country or it’s fate as a nation. It is all about her! However, there are issues to be considered. Issues that are concerns of History. In Supreme Court History, there has been described a “Jewish” seat on the Court and a “Catholic” seat on the Court. A Justice Barrett seat however will be the “tainted” seat! Tainted from unfair, dishonest, corrupt political machinations and intrigue. All baggage that will be attached not just to the Court itself but to the numerous cases this woman will side on in majority decisions affecting this country’s Jusisprudence. Thusly, Judge Amy Coney Barrett lacks the necessary qualities of character, conviction, class, nobility, honor, integrity and yes Christianity to give of herself for the common good. God help us!

    4. Merrick Garland was nominated by a DEMOCRAT President which was asking a REPUBLICAN Senate to approve his Supreme Court nominee. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is nominated by a REPUBLICAN President which is asking a REPUBLICAN Senate to approve his Supreme Court nominee. Of course a REPUBLICAN Senate will approve REPUBLICAN President’s nominee. If you are telling us that a DEMOCRATE Senate would NOT approve a Democrat President’s nominee in a similar situation, you are a liar.

    5. You people are so smart academically it’s a shame you lack common sense I just want to know how you fit so many jackasses in one room # bunch of morons

  1. With your colleagues, I strongly support you decline this nomination until after the inauguration of the next president

    1. She was picked by Trump, a second Justice steal, so already she is disliked, her lack of answering any questions and hiding information about herself, she could make herself more popular if she took her colleagues advice but some how I don’t think she cares about anything but herself and Trump and what he wants. She will hurt our country even more than Trump has as she kills ACA, Abortions, Voting Rights, Gay rights, our rights, she does not care about Americans, she will give Trump the Election. She can’t say she cares about the Constitution since Trump doesn’t and she does not care about Democracy as Trump is an autocrat! Once Trump has full power I guess he won’t need the Supreme Court, Congress once he won’t answer to anyone, some what like he is right now.

  2. You, 88, seem to teach a lot of unmarketable majors. Do you really think that people that actually care about this country care what you think?

    1. Yes, I absolutely care about my country. If Judge Barrett has a shred of decency, she will step down from this sham appointment in the midst of an election. If the American people (a majority of whom voted against the President) are to have a say, as they should in a democracy, she will have the courage to step away.

      1. It’s not a sham, the President has constitutional authority to nominate Judge Barrett and the Senate has the authority to vote on the nomination. Because of the 2014, 2016, and 2018 elections. Elections due matter. Their terms don’t end until January. I am sorry that you disagree with it but it’s not a sham. I hope you have a great day.

      2. You people purport to teach at the most pre-eminent Catholic University in the Country if not the world. But yet you can’t put your petty political gripes and selfish personal beliefs ahead of what would be an astounding and a unique opportunity for Our Ladies University. Would you rather have a strongly liberal justice that stands in complete opposition to what the Church teaches or someone of our own with great family values and high moral standards that Amy possesses. Enough of the Harvard and Yale lawyers on the Court . I believe in Amy and only she knows how she might rule but I suspect that if confirmed she will prove to be one of the great legal minds and most competent jurists big the past century. There is no legal reason for the Senate not to approve her. No whining about what the Republicans did 4 years ago. Remember the Golden Rule : them that has the gold rules… and I believe some guy named Obama said “ elections have consequences – I won – you lost I’m going to do this “ But others have argued that better than I can . I come back to the fact you 50 or so actual professors have no right to represent a view for the University. There are thousands of we Alumni that built this school to what it is . We are upset that your selfishness and personal beliefs do not represent the true feelings of the institution. Express your opinions individually and on your own time but do not use the University as if it were your own . You are a small part vocal maybe but yet insult the ND community with your ignorance and your single mindedness. Like most liberals it’s always about you with no tolerance for other people’s ideas and beliefs. Whether you know it or not you are making very hard for those of us who love Notre Dame and who have worked very hard and contributed a great deal of money to help make ND what it is today to wonder if what we have sacrificed is really worth it . Make your views known but don’t do it as representatives of the University. R David Sheehan Jr BA-1968, BSCE- 1969 member of Engineering Council and and donor of the Sheehan Family Civil Engineering Chair

      3. @Greg, the precedent that has been established time and time again (from Abraham Lincoln to Merrick Garland) has been to wait until after the upcoming election.

        As someone whose job it is to correctly and unbiasedly assess precedent to laws, Judge Barrett should easily see that what is happening is wildly against precedent and unfair. Sadly, she is blinded by her own selfishness and agenda, but if she were a fair judge she would have the decency to reject this — especially after the way her party handled Merrick Garland.

    2. I would hope that citizens do care, especially citizens of the Notre Dame community. If people don’t care about what their neighbors and fellow citizens think or feel, does it even make sense to have a civil and representative society? You don’t have to agree, but can certainly respect their right to an opinion, as I hope we would all do equally for you.

    3. Math, English, Economics, Sociology, Music, Political Science, History? Unmarketable?

      I believe this letter is addressed to Judge Amy Coney Barrett, not “people that actually care about this country.”

      I think this is a fair request, who knows if it has any impact. A good judge would recognize the points made in the letter and make the right choice. This government is for the people, not the political parties.

    4. Who decides what is marketable? We are in an interdisciplinary world and technology has overlapped many fields. As we are both here reading it, folks clearly care what they think. Now you, on the other hand, with your uninformed opinions, are a different matter.

    5. What an ignorant comment, Mr. Whipsnade. You might want to consider that deeming the opinions of educated people as unimportant based on whether their interests and intellectual pursuits are “marketable” is a reflection of the greed that has taken over the right wing.

      1. The faculty letter of the Great Notre Dame speaks to their fair way of thinking at this critical time in America. Voices of Reason.
        God Bless them, their courage and wisdom

    6. As an English major who has had a remarkable, always-employed adulthood and now approaching age 75, I wouldn’t trade my liberal arts education for all the tea in China. It is history, literature, the arts and the social sciences that celebrate the imagination, creativity and community building that have made the US the leader in international higher education and that make us all human. Studying history helps us to recognize repetitive patterns and psychology and communications help us to address the challenges that such patterns present. Studying literature helps us to put ourselves in the shoes of others and to live our lives with the wisdom and caring that accompanies such an experience. One of these professors specializes in Global Health. What could be more important right now in the history of human life on earth? Liberal arts educations are the common experience of many of our professionals — graduate school is required for Medicine, Engineering and Law, for example, and graduates of the College of Arts and Sciences at Notre Dame report an average salary of $55,000. The Association of American Colleges and Universities and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems showed in a recent study that graduates with a liberal arts education (humanities or social sciences) earn more at their peak-earning years compared to others who hold a professional or pre-professional degree.

      1. Whomever signed this letter, resign immediately.
        You are all, obviously unfit to be in an educational system, that allows you to reach our kids, well, anything.

    7. It is not uncommon these days for people in professional careers to have majors not related to their goals, and for some admission committees in these professional schools ‘non traditional’ applicants are viewed in a different and sometimes positive light for the diversity of thought and training. For example, you might find that perhaps your own physician has majored in English Literature, but still completed all the requisite coursework on the side in the sciences. Maybe before you attack the educated you would do well to address your own ignorance.

    8. A post attacking the people instead of addressing the issue is really quite useless, like your fake name. It just shows you have no valid argument.

      1. What Hypo’s. If the shoe was on the other foot, I wonder what would be excuse for Dems to do the same thing.

    9. I was impressed by the variety of majors including some legal scholars. So you judge people by whether or not their majors are going to automatically lead to wealth? People should only care about people who are wealthy? The letter was not hateful, but you are.

    10. Wow, Larsen e. Whipsnade, huh? As in WC Fields? Too scared to use a real name, troll? Those 88, as you say, CLEARLY care about our country.

    11. I see. So what sorts of fields should they teach, so that we know whether to take them seriously? You can just provide a bullet list, no need to use complete sentences.

    12. We should all care about our country, each other and what others think about issues that concern all of us. America is about US. It’s not every man (woman) for him(her)self.

    13. Have you chosen marketability as the primary measure of human knowledge? If so, then you probably need to spend a few years getting an unmarketable major like: history. All of the great values lack marketability – justice, honor, love, empathy. In fact, people who strongly advocate for these qualities in humanity regularly run into self-centered commercial interest as one of their enemy. Now perhaps your comment was an indictment of those leading this country and not your personal view. If so, I agree, because our government is currently run by a cabal of those who have sacrificed their honor at the altar of power and wealth. I seriously doubt any of them care one whit what I think. I’m sure they don’t care about what you think either. We’re the little people to them. I hope you don’t view them as your champions.

    14. Many of these people are law professors that were probably Amy’s teachers at one point, and these are her colleagues in a school she setting she respects. Unfortunately, your criticisms are shallow and reflect the hypocritical manipulation of this process by the Republican Senate. Have you forgotten the words of McConnell?

    15. I for one am “people of this country,” one who cares what these people think. Who has appointed you the spokesperson for American citizens?

    16. First, as you are hiding behind a silly pseudonym, I assume you’re either a Trump troll or a Russian bot. But as to the point you attempt to make, Notre Dame faculty members who signed this letter were addressing their comments to Dr. Barrett. She, as a serious scholar, will of course care about the views of other serious scholars who are her academic colleagues — independent of the “marketability” of their fields of expertise. Critical thinking is more important in almost all human endeavors than the mere monetizing of subsequent effort. This pertains especially to law and jurisprudence when they are well practiced, as must be the case on the Supreme Court. Perhaps you will honor the seriousness of this discussion thread by revealing who you really are. But I’m not holding my breath…

    17. People that care about saving our democracy do care what 88 college professors think. It seems that many who did not go to college do not care about their opinions or going college which might enlighten them!

    18. Larceny Whipsnade. Expect me to believe that you exist? To study anything is to learn. i have a degree in education which with two bucks will get me a coffee at Starbucks, but it was worth doing.

    19. This post is a good example of what is wrong with the US, as it exemplifies the kind of discourse that has become pervasive:
      1. Accusing people who simply have different politics than you of not caring about the country;
      2. Using insults to launch ad hominem attacks instead of directly addressing the issue at hand; and
      3. thinking that launching said ad hominem attacks is a legitimate form of argument.

    20. That is a ridiculous comment. Many have had a successful career that wasn’t related to their major.
      You may not value an education but don’t criticize others who do.
      Yes, I do care about this country and also care what “88” thinks. But what you think, not so much.
      P.S. ” Larsen Whipsnade , you can’t cheat an honest man.” or woman. Judge Barrett should step aside until after the election.

    21. Judge Barrett is not qualified nor ready for such an appointment. She clearly should not be appointed, and I concur with her colleagues that she should withdraw her nomination, or place on hold until after the election. The American people do not want her on the US Supreme Court. She degrades and forever loses our respect if she does not uphold Justice Ginsburg’s wish. She further shows her support for corruption and dark money should she proceed.

    22. PhD Department of Finance, PhD Sociology (x3), Economics (x6), Political Science (x5), Chemistry and Biochemistry, Institute of Global Health, Political Science and Peace Studies (x2), American Studies, History (x4), Theology (x2) ,,,, I got tired of counting so that’s only the bottom half of the list.

      Maybe you never had the opportunity to go to college — and I’m so sorry if you didn’t — but these are entirely marketable (why that’s even relevant to this argument is unknown) areas of study for law school, business school, technology, med school, and big finance firms. And if “the people who actually care about this country” are the people I believe you are referring to, then especially Finance, Economics, Theology, American Studies, and History would be important, no? You’re just making a baseless and simply irrelevant argument to detract from their point.

      I know I personally don’t have the qualifications it takes to become a professor, but if you have decades of degrees and experience teaching at the highest level of academia, then by all means please correct me and I’ll reassess my position on your comment.

  3. What an excellent letter! Now THAT is a “perfect” letter! You spoke to every aspect we’ve been questioning and if Ms.Coney-Barret is of quality and decency she will wait for a few short but VERY fair weeks! I mean, what the HELL!

    1. I agree with the Facuty.However,she seems eager to proceed,
      .Especially with the approval of the President of the University!We shall see the results of her conscience.

  4. I was thinking basically this same thing. A real judge worthy of the seat would say she would wait. That doing right is better than telling people what is right. Alas, I think she is in love with the idea of “changing the world” as she knows it. Nothing will get in her way. So she claims not to be like Trump, but he picked the right woman to “go for it”. She has the drive, that is for sure. What is legal and what is moral are often two different things.

    1. What is legal and what is moral are different things by definition. What we have witnessed in the past four years has consistently been immoral, and dubiously legal. Barrett stands to be the legacy of that policy.

      Those that only act in a legally conscious way, and forsake moral obligations should have no place in public service. Should have no place on the highest court of the land. Should have no place in the presidency. Yet here we are.

      I want to be clear that morality is not a simple thing. People have different value systems and beliefs, and even slightly different morals from one culture to the next. But if we can’t agree that morality has a place in the JUSTICE SYSTEM of all places, we are lost. If we can’t count on judges that are nominated to these lifetime positions to value honesty and transparency more than money and power, we are lost. If we can’t count on judges to abide by the spirit of the Constitution, which states in no uncertain terms that the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is validated by the voice of the American people through the elections of Senators and the President, then we are turning our back on the very Constitution that the Supreme Court is in place to interpret and protect.

      This nomination is in no uncertain terms an attempt to pave the way to dismantle democracy and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and no person of moral conscience would support it, Barrett or otherwise.

      It’s likened to whether or not you wear a mask in public in a state which does not have a mask mandate. Legally, you have an option. Morally, there is one clear choice; wearing the mask protects others, while not wearing it endangers them. This is just another one of those very simple choices Barrett should make. You would think as a judge she’d care about how legitimate we feel her decisions are, and what motivates them. Then again, she really hasn’t answered any questions that would give us insight about that, either.

    2. No they wouldn’t and if the Democrats had the power right now with the chance of risking a Republican candidate winning they would do the exact same thing just like they tried under Obama with only 10 months left to the election at that time. The only reason it didn’t happen is because the Democrats did not have the majority. I mean really, you are all educated. This is a no brainer!

    1. Judging from what I’m seeing, she will likely read it, but “comply?” Fat chance. She’s salivating over the chance to be on the SCOTUS!

  5. Your three “reasons” make no sense when examined and have any amount of thought applied.

    “may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice.”

    False… As in 29 previous instances by 22 presidents, when the president and Senate are of the same party, nominations proceed regardless of timing of an election.

    The American people have express their voice loudly. Trump was elected to be the president (at least) until January 2021. Any presidential duties up to the end of the current term are solely in the purview of the current president. Period. No debate. Quit the nonsense argument about the “American voice”. You just look silly.

    Even if RBG had passed on November 4th and Biden (Heaven forbid) were elected, it would STILL be Trump’s duty to fill the seat. As she died well before the January end of term, there is no reason that is valid to wait until “after the election” or the new term.

    As for RBG’s supposed “dying wish”. That’s most likely false (considering the source), but even if it were, it’s irrelevant. No justice gets to dictate who picks their successor. She was smart enough to know that and it’s insulting to her memory to spread false information that it is her dying wish to do something so nonsensical. Don’t insult her memory that way. She passed. It’s not the “RBG seat” to be filled by someone with her same judicial temperament. The Founding Fathers knew what would work. The system works. She passed and left the seat for Trump to fill. Period.

    Finally the claim of our current divisiveness is true… But not only is it irrelevant to the issue, it’s primarily the fault of the left. The left is the one filled with hate, dividing the country with venomous attacks and false claims. You’d be better served educating the left on looking at thing correctly, expressing themselves intelligently, and stopping the racism and hatred they spew every day.

    Sorry this reality is a hard pill for you to swallow, but this lunacy has to end. Let the fine educators of Notre Dame set a positive example instead of negative nonsense as this entire “open letter” is.

    1. Keep getting your alternative facts from Tucker Carlson & Sean Hannity… Oh… and don’t forget Judge Jennine! lol

    2. Clearly written by a GOP zealot. The voice of Americans is quite different than it was four years ago, before this administration, and Donald Trump has destroyed this country like he does with virtually everything else he touches. The polls bear this out. Your statement “You’d be better served educating the left on looking at thing correctly, expressing themselves intelligently, and stopping the racism and hatred they spew every day.” is classic Trumpian projection. Only Trump and the GOP spews racism and has divided this once great nation. And YOU as an American citizen supporting this behavior are complicit in the destruction. Don’t blame the Democrats…instead take a good look at yourself.

    3. “As she died well before the January end of term, there is no reason that is valid to wait until “after the election” or the new term”.
      Then please explain to me the justification for McConnell holding up the election for 9 months when Obama held office, and the refusal to vote for his candidate. You hypocrite. this is a very shaky statement base on no significant moral or ethical foundation, surely none established by the Republican segment of our congress. This is embarrassing for you. This is also demeaning for the candidate Amy Coney Barrett who has to see she is a pawn being played by a very divisive, very endgame focused group of players.

      1. The justification is simple, when Republicans hold the Senate in an election year, they have the Constitutional power NOT to confirm a Democrat President’s appointee and to confirm a Republican President’s appointee. Do you honestly believe it wouldn’t be the same if the roles were reversed? C’mon, man. The people elected a Republican President and a Republican majority senate to nominate and confirm originalist and textualist justices who interpret the Constitution based on what it says and was intended to mean by its drafters, leaving changes to the amendment process, as opposed to activist “living document” justices, unmoored by the document’s text, who interpret the Constitution in a manner that advances the progressive ideals of the day.

      2. Merrick Garland was nominated by a DEMOCRAT President which was asking a REPUBLICAN Senate to approve his Supreme Court nominee. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is nominated by a REPUBLICAN President which is asking a REPUBLICAN Senate to approve his Supreme Court nominee. Of course a REPUBLICAN Senate will approve REPUBLICAN President’s nominee. If you are telling us that a DEMOCRATE Senate would NOT approve a Democrat President’s nominee in a similar situation, you are a liar.

    4. Kevin, you must then be pretty upset that President Obama wasn’t allowed to put Merrick Garland up for the Supreme Court, based on your own words. Correct? I mean, the American people didn’t only elect Obama once, but twice! So that full final year of his second term was mandated by the American people. Yet…Republicans stole that seat from him. And before you argue that Republicans controlled the Senate, so too damn bad for Obama, let’s not forget that Republicans historically receive less of the votes but win more seats due to gerrymandering. They can’t win without gerrymandering and voter suppression.

    5. Your attacks on the left are misguided at best. Your claims that the American people spoke loudly when they elected Trump are a falsehood. Recall a majority did not vote for this corrupt liar in chief. That same majority, now bolstered by increasing numbers, are hitting the ballot boxes and streets with their American Voice. They are not “silly” as you said. They are exercising their constitutional right of redress. Redress, by the way, is one of the five freedoms the constitution guarantees. Judge Barret famously forgot that one important freedom yesterday at the hearings when asked what the 5 are. If she truly recognizes the difference between right and wrong, she will stop this sham by stepping away until the loud American voice has a say in the matter.

    6. Oh boy… the Left are the ones spewing hate and misinformation? How about at least recognize that some people on both sides have been horrific. Not everyone on either the right or left falls into that category. This is the problem. Both sides of the media have done a piss poor job at truly educating the American people, and leaders on both sides have set infantile examples of how to respectfully disagree. This attitude of yours is prime example. Show some grace and humility and educate those with facts and kindness if you really want to get the message across and be effective. This doesn’t work.

    7. “The American people have express their voice loudly??” They certainly have, young MR. Kitchens, 3,000,000 more of them voted AGAINST Mr. Trump. He was placed in office by the parlor game known as the “Electoral College” As a result of this fraud, perpetrated by McConnell, Millions of AMERICANS will both loose their healthcare, and needlessly carry molecules of zygotes (see, non-sentient beings”) to term and subsequently deprive women control and decision-making regarding their own bodies……Bright boy….Mr. Kitchens,
      Dr. Alan S. Altman,, Ed.D

    8. Well said in a succinct and factual manner . Expressing the reality of the process showed restraint and respect to any doubters of the obligations to responsibility by the President and the Senate . The obligations are specified in our constitution with no consideration to partisanship and are what they are .

    9. What they did not include, and should have, is that her appointment will carry the stench of dirty politics. It will then be three of the GOP-nominated SCOTUS members who will have an asterisk next to their names. She can avoid that by showing some integrity.

    10. “The American people have express their voice loudly.” The American people didn’t vote for out current president, nor did we vote for the current Senate.

      The senators in the minority represent the majority of the population and the majority of Americans voted against the current President. I’m not saying that either were put in in a way that violated the law, just that it was not by “the loud voice of the people”.

    11. So , Am I to believe you were in favor of Obama’s nomine , Garland.Your scenario and timeline would apply equally and your argument should surely be the same because Obama had many more months prior to the next swearing in the following January.??

    12. Well said these people are crazy and such hateful human beings it’s disgusting I pray Trump wins biden is corrupt and the dem party has lost there minds

    13. A vacancy “arose during Obama’s final year as president, and shortly after Scalia’s death was announced. But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia’s death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president—to be elected later that year.” Why the double standard and hypocrisy? This is what is wrong with Republican Party.

    14. I’m sorry, you think the left is spewing racism? The left?

      What are you on? Seriously, I’m curious what has led you to this outrageously false claim. It’s like you know literally nothing about what the left stands for. Never seen a more ignorant and blatantly politicized statement to promote a failing far-right wing agenda.

      Well; I wish I could say that last part. Truthfully Trump does a better job than you.

    15. ND taught me ethics; Kevin Kitchens must’ve skipped that class.

      Judge Barrett is an impressive person, and will honor that lifetime of accomplishment by withdrawing her name until after the election. Nothing less is worthy of America, or Notre Dame.

    1. I hope and pray that Senator Amy will do the right thing and wait for election results. Let the people speak! Our president is not well!!

  6. Excellent. My friend and I had just constructed a letter saying the same thing. Now we don’t have to search for an outlet as your statement is out there.thank you.

  7. I was beginning to wonder what type of scholars Notre Dame favored, especially when the president of the Institution appeared maskless at the White House fiasco?

    Were I the lady in question I would consider it deeply demeaning to be so hastily thrust forward by a President who risks losing in the election that is already underway.

    Since the nomination of Merrick Garland was politically disallowed by the very Republicans who now promote Amy Coney Barrett, how can a proposed candidate with any solid legal principles avoid seeing the shaky status of her respective situation, knowing that those who seek to elect her don’t dare wait until after American citizens have cast their votes and the election has been decided?

  8. I am so impressed and touched by your letter.I think that you have expressed what most Americans are thinking. Thank you all.

    Elinor Pressel

    1. One of our great presidents: Lincoln, when faced with an opening on the Supreme Court weeks before the election of his second term, chose to wait–to give the American people the chance to vote. So we have precedent set already. Republican Senators and Amy C. B. should all hit the pause button.

  9. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Each State is guaranteed a Republican form of government. The word democracy does not even appear in the Constitution, The letter of the Constitution is being followed. What are the objections beyond the political? Even Justice Ginsberg pointed out a President is elected to a 4 year term and never publicly made not to fill her seat. That States have chosen to start the election process earlier each year does not shorten that terms of the President or the Senate.

    What are the political affiliations of those above? What is the overall political makeup of the faculty at Notre Dame? Are they as dedicated to diversity of thought as well the other diversities?

    1. Definitely not dedicated to diversity of thought. They also missed the fact that the voters have already voted for the president and the senate who’s job is to nominate and then provide advice and consent. The voters are getting what has been voted for. It is a sad commentary that university professors do not recognize this because they are blinded by their ________ (fill in the blank).

    2. Beyond that, who made Notre Dame the repository of all discussion, thought and opinion about the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the SCOTUS. She is eminently qualified.

  10. I am deeply dismayed that faculty members of such an esteemed university would post a letter displaying such ignorance and disdain for the United States government and its procedures. Ther judicial process was structured to be as it should be, separate from partisan politics. Judges should be the impartial interpreters of law and not the makers of public policy. This letter illustrates that all the signess are political animals and not qualified to be part of any judicial process. To address your first point, the selection of a justice is a constitutional obligation. You imply that public opinion dictates that the selection be delayed. The US is a republic governed by law, not a democracy governed by every whim of the populace. Your suggestion that the selction of a justice be governed by a poll is egregious.You refer to “raw power politics” but that is an ignorant and biased manner of describing the legislative branch of the government. The American people spoke in 2016 and your suggestion usurps the democratic process that took place. An election is legitimate whether you approve of the results or not. Calling out Republican hypocrisy while citint the unsuccessful nomination of Merrick Garland is, in itslef, hypocritiucal as the very same Democrats who called for Garland to be confirmed are the same people calling for Amy Coney Barrett to be declined. And why are you so sure that “the people” will choose Biden? You clearly believe that your political choice is morth worthy than those whose voices you deem less worthy. Your arrogannce is apparent to everyone but yourselves.
    Referring to an unconfirmed dying wish of Justice Ginsburg is shameful. Should her dying wish take precedence over judicial procedure? Ginsburg herself stated that such a nomination should go through.
    Yoiu decry polarization yet this letter is precisely the type of political extremism in academia that creates polarization.You are absolutely ignorant of how this type of elitism that takes more than permitted by the rule of law has generated antagonism in America for academia. Your own self perception of righteousness leads you to overreach. Have you ever considered what the average American who actually has to work for a living feels while being accused of being racist? You surely decry anyone imposing relgious values on you but you do not hesitate to impose secular liberal values on people who do not accept them. The people spoke and you are trying to suppress them.
    I am apalled that academics would write such a letter. It shows the glaring diffence between education and intelligence.

    1. I agree with your comments. Furthermore, what makes the authors of this letter think that Amy Coney Barrett declining will keep President Trump from nominating someone else?

  11. Congratulations and thank you for this patriotic and heartfelt letter written out of necessity yet, sadly, in futility. I applaud you all.

    Anacleta C.Martina
    St. Paul, MN

    1. What about the arguments of the GOP when Obama wanted hearings for Merritt Garland” Just listen to the clips of the BS they said back then. I call it BS because every one of them have proven it was BS by their actions now. Less than a year before an election was “too soon” back then for them. Less than a month now is just fine. So much for letting the people speak. They are clearly terrified of letting the people speak. The hypocrisy is stunningly blatant.

  12. This is such an admirable and honorable effort to save a small part of so much we have lost; The integrity of our democracy and the common decency among Americans. I am given hope in just being aware of your effort here to open the window for such an honorable thing to happen our country is drowning in chaos driven by moronic greed and a clown at the helm. God save us🙏😔

    1. This is a selfish, blatant attempt to block the voters wishes since they have already voted for the president and senate who are doing their jobs (do you think they should sit around doing nothing all day but writing inane letters like the faculty of Notre Dame when they are getting paid to do a job?). It is also a sad commentary on these people’s dislike of real diversity since they only care their opinions and think that those who think differently (and obviously vote differently) should bow to their wishes. Shame on these faculty for trying to publicly shame ACB!

  13. I admit, my impression of you would be proud and one I would share with my children and grandchildren! We were raised in Catholic tradition and such a sacrifice would be one I would be proud of. Sounds like your peers are asking you to make a choice!

  14. wow, didn’t realize that Notre Dame had fallen to such low standards. So many ‘gender studies’ profs. Such a shame. Used to be such a great university. Now, just a liberal mushy mess. Might as well go to the local public university for the same, albeit more well funded, studies.

  15. I want Judge Amy in the Supreme Court and that matters too…thank you for asking me an American Citizen ju

  16. Thank you for making this request of Amy Coney Barrett one I pray and hope she gives great consideration to. I am quite familiar with the University of Notre Dame having a brother who graduated from there in 1971 as well as having worked with the International Studies program when ND received multiple grants through the U.S. Dept. of Education’s Title Vi program. I have much respect for the moral and intellectual integrity of the university. I pray Ms. Barrett does also.

  17. A once fine open minded school, that wants to rewrite the constitution. What a pity for this fine institution.

  18. The thought process behind these “reasons” are exactly why none of these individuals are being grilled by the Senate.

    When you’re at the pinnacle of your profession, like ACB is, there’s no looking back.

    My guess is ACB doesn’t bother to read this nonsense, and if she does, she will either laugh & scoff reviewing the “author” list or not know wtf these people are.

    This group would be better off writing legislators to change the constitution that Presidential duties stop after 3.5 years. Might as well make it 3 years….or maybe just ignore the constitution altogether. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” – RGB

    Also, an aside, what does “we ask that you repair the injury to her memory” even mean? Was RGB’s “memory” injured? Does ACB repair injuries of the lost? Is ACB a savior? So dramatic.

    I don’t know what RGB’s dying wish was, and maybe that was her dying wish….but I think everyone knows that she would uphold due process any day of the week over any of her own political wishes.

    Three things that we know RGB definitely said: “Packing the court is a terrible idea”, “the job of the President is to nominate judges (even in an election year)”, and “having eight justices on SCOTUS is a bad idea”.

  19. Yes! The Notre Dame community faculty I remember, respectfully calling on Judge Barrett to step-back from the nomination process until after the election. As a triple domer, I agree: please step-back Judge Barrett. Justice and democracy and ethical action demands it.

  20. This is an excellent letter! It goes some way to help regain the love and admiration of Europeans for the culture and politics of the America we love.
    I hope Judge Amy Coney Barrett lives up to this challenge

    1. DEFINITELY WORTH NOTING ….While the letter purports to be signed by her colleagues at Notre Dame, most of the faculty members that signed it DO NOT work at Notre Dame’s Law School, where she had been a law professor for 20 years.

      ALSO Worth noting: University of Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins and G. Marcus Cole, dean and professor of law at Notre Dame Law School praised Barrett after her nomination was announced.

  21. The letter is eloquently written. One’s colleagues have much to reveal about a person! It would be so incredibly honorable for her this relatively new judge of just over two years to ask for a delay until after the election. This is a job that is more important than self! Although we see so many at the national level displaying bias and prejudice for their political views, I still hold onto the hope that our U.S. Supreme Court justices are above this! I revered RBG and only hope that this young woman who really isn’t even dry behind the ears, would have the good sense to do what is right for our country. I’m sure the allure and attention of Trump and his entourage is intoxicating to her and her backers, but why not do the noble thing! Just a citizen who taught government to a few thousand over the years! Praying you will do the right thing!

    1. The answer to your question is simple: If she does the right thing, chances are very good she will not become a Supreme Court Justice.

      The same answer explains why Senate Republicans like Mitch McConnel repeatedly refuse to do the right thing. They are blocking economic stimulus from those that need it most in America’s hour of greatest need. It’s abhorrent. Add it to the growing pile of unimaginable disaster this presidency has overseen, along with the Muslim ban, national division, and the silent encouragement of hate groups.

      I would be pleasantly surprised if she did the right thing. But I harbor extreme doubts that anyone Trump nominated would have such a prerogative. Just look at who he made our Postmaster General and what they’ve done.

  22. The Letter written by English Professor John Duffy and signed on to by other present and retired ND faculty members to Amy Coney Barrett is a guaranteed constitutional right but typifies how selfish, spoiled and out of touch these alleged academics are with the world around them. Barrett is a shining light in a country that has gone to pot where everyone has their hand out for something free, hasn’t learned how to think and do something, relies on others to do the needed work, and then prefers blaming others for their own lack of personal progress.

    This lack of support for our country, laws and essential institutions leads to protests on issues that are allowed to turn to rioting, burning, looting and thoughtless cries to Defund law enforcement. Everyone takes great pride in being an “individual”. Unfortunately, the self-absorbed, self-ingratiating, evolving individual has no clue how to work with others to problem solve.

    Amy Coney Barrett stands head and shoulders above these declared signatories who just do not get it.

    1. Barrett took her children to the Rose Garden without a mask. Many people there tested positive within days. The she parades her children at her job interview. That’s a red flag. A mother without common sense using her children as pawns, their health at risk. And she made a “joke” about her children preferring her husband’s cooking. Why would a mother even care if her husband, also in the law business, is a better cook? Those are personality flaws. Barrett is biased. Check her avoidance of the precedents during questioning. She avoids R.vs W. yet replies regarding the rest. I’m not American, and I am impartial. The scholars whom signed this petition are just as intelligent as Barrett. Did they buy their credentials on the Dark Web? Do they get payola from the boss at the IRA in Russia. C’mon.

    2. Then there are a lot of us who just don’t get it. This is a hack job in case Trump can somehow challenge the election results. Remember Merrick Garland and the excuse for not considering him? Yeah, well we are less than 2 weeks from this election. You know it’s wrong and if you’re sure Trump will win, what’s the rush?

    3. It is a shame that so called, an academic professors are asking Amy Coney Barrett to reject the highest honor for a woman in order to “earn the respect of fair-minded people everywhere”; the respect of whom? The respect of the disrespectful professors who think they are better than Judge Barrett?

      In my opinion, you all “professors” are filled with hatred in your heart.

      Judge Amy, some of us women are very happy for the nomination to the highest court in the US. Please ignore this request to give up. You are a much better person than those academic professors filled with envy.

  23. The sitting president has more time between election date and turnover (lame duck period – 78 days) then it typically takes to confirm a supreme court justice (73 days) we’re still 21 days out and the appointment was announced 19 days ago. In other words, they are asking for a 114 day delay on a process that typically takes 73 days from start to finish, and implying that it is “rushed”.

    Supreme court justices are supposed to be a non-partisan appointment. The second point in this ask flies in the face of that principle, asking the judge to hold off on appointment so that partisan politics can reverse her consideration as a qualified candidate. What happened with Merrick Garland was shameful but that doesn’t justify a repeat performance and at least it was the senates right to do it, since it is the legislative branch, and not the next generation of the executive branch who is responsible for confirmations.

    Ruth Bader Gindsburg’s dying wish does have some weight, but is it worth running the supreme court in a reduced capacity for an extra 1/3-1/2 of a year to honor it? In my opinion it is not, but it could be argued that based on her service to the country it is worth honoring.

    Still this letter seems like a pretty disingenuous attempt to politicize a historically apolitical branch of government, further pulling our government into the sinkhole of partisan politics.

  24. Integrity is everything, esp. in government. Without it, we all lose. You will have to live with your decision of not stepping down until after the election. If you’re as religious as you claim to be, then please exercise your integrity now. This country’s life depends on it. Thank you!

  25. We know why she was chosen. She ha shared her philosophy of life. We can only hope thatwhewn she fully comprehends the power of her position she will do the right thing.

  26. Judge Coney Barrett has done no wrong. Yet her colleagues pressure her to sacrifice her career for their political beliefs by publicly shaming her. I say this is wrong. I have always been suspicious of those who call for others to sacrifice oneself for causes not their own in a public way. I would be eager to hear the signers responses if asked publically would you be willing to give up their prestigious office for my cause?

    I do not hold much respect for actions of her colleagues. The letter should have been made as a private plead and not a cowardly, self righteous public post.

    If our legislative bodies believe a nomination to a lifetime post should be postponed let them make such a law. As for today, the president and Judge Coney Barrett are within their legal right to pursue this nomination.

    I am not a fan of publically shaming of an inocent individual into submission for my will or the will of others.

  27. I am 100% in agreement with this letter. A cloud will hang over her head for the lifetime of her judgeship if she doesn’t delay until after the election.

  28. Excuse me but when do someone’s last wish override the law? The president serves until Jan 1 no matter what. I’m sorry you don’t like the rules. Sham is also not a legal word or description, it is mere hyperbole.

  29. A political request of a non Political body. Leave the politics out of the Supreme Court! Don’t you see enough damage due to politics! This is why the country is divided. Shame on all of you for suggesting this person withdraw. A pox on all of ypu!

Leave a Reply