A Catholic newspaper said Aimee Cooney Barrett’s “moral relativism” should exclude her from the Supreme Court seat.

In the editorial, a staff National Catholic Reporter The US Senate has called for Mrs. Barrett to be rejected based on her responses during the hearings on the climate crisis, as well as how the Senate handled the open Supreme Court seat following the death of Judge Antonin Scalia in 2016.

The editorial stated that “hypocrisy is an order, and it is impossible to see how hasty this nomination will be beneficial to our democracy,” calling on Republicans to “double standards” to prevent President Barack Obama from taking the seat of Judge Scalia very soon to the elections. In 2016 during the presentation of President Donald Trump’s 2020 nomination.

Barrett is not responsible for [Senate Leader Mitch] McConnell’s behavior, but it allowed itself to be a vehicle for his agenda and that of President Donald Trump. ”

The main issue that the editorial addressed with the appointment of Mrs. Barrett was the “moral relativism” that she presented during the Senate hearings.

During the hearings, Ms. Barrett confirmed that COVID-19 is contagious and that smoking causes cancer. But it was unable to provide an opinion for senators on the climate crisis, which Trump has defended despite scientific evidence that it is a serious environmental problem.

Ms. Barrett described the issue as “a highly contentious matter of public debate” and refused to express her firm opinion.

“If Barrett really has doubts about it, she is not intellectually qualified to serve on the bench, and we think she knows that,” the newspaper wrote. “She was simply willing to embrace moral relativism rather than risk a bad tweet from the man who recommended it.”

The paper found that the most “unpleasant” realization about Mrs. Barrett and her alleged “moral lineage” came from her belief in authenticity and texts.

Originality is a view held by some judges, including the late Judge Scalia, that the Constitution is a self-interpreting text that should be interpreted based on the intentions of the original founding fathers of the document at the time it was written.

“The logic of Barrett’s originality is that [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg’s legal theories were not only different but also illegitimate. The newspaper wrote that Barrett’s relativity, like the man who recommended it, relies on steroids. ”

Ms. Barrett faced scrutiny for her Catholic faith and conservative views after the president was nominated. The Republicans even accused people against her candidacy of being anti-Catholic.

Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said, “When you tell someone they’re too Catholic to be on the bench, when you tell them they’re going to be a Catholic judge, not an American judge, that’s bigotry.” During Senate sessions.

If nominated, Mrs. Barrett would be one of six conservative justices on the Supreme Court, five of whom are Catholics.

The National Catholic Reporter He took up the figure and expressed his concern that this would give the public a bad image of the Catholic faith.

“We at NCR do not like the possibility that five of the six Conservative judges are Catholics, and we worry about what that says about our church,” the newspaper wrote. “ But in America, there are no religious tests for office and no senator may oppose Barrett because of her religion.

“Americans deserve better than native relativists.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee is due to vote on Ms. Barrett’s nomination for the Supreme Court on Thursday. The full vote in the Senate will likely take place on October 26.