The Politics and Implications of Justice Amy Coney Barrett
By Ryan Cho ‘23
The controversy surrounding Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation is tremendously multifaceted. President Trump nominated her a month before one of the most polarizing and antagonistic presidential elections in modern history. She received 52 votes of approval, all from members of the Republican Party. She received 47 nay votes – which included all Senate Democrats, Independents, and one Republican (Senator Susan Collins of Maine) – as well as a singular “hell no” vote from Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. This makes Justice Barrett the first Justice to be confirmed to the Supreme Court without a single yay vote from the dominant minority party in 151 years.
The partisan vote distribution was expected following her contentious trial. From blunders like forgetting one of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to debate swirling around her religious ties, Barrett’s recent time in the spotlight has been anything but smooth. Furthermore, many Democrats viewed the nomination as unjust after the Republican filibuster in 2016 that prevented President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland from succeeding Justice Scalia (a position later filled by Justice Neil Gorsuch under President Trump).
The controversy stemming from her hearing and appointment are far from over, and it is likely to taint her decisions in future SCOTUS cases. President Trump has expressly stated that he would appoint justices ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court decision that established abortion as a constitutional right, as well as the Affordable Care Act, an Obama-era statute designed to dramatically expand healthcare coverage. And upon refusing to explicitly agree to a peaceful transfer of power come November 3rd, Trump has also alluded to the possibility of utilizing the new Republican-dominated court to contest the election by claiming voter fraud.
With this in mind, Democrats call for Justice Barrett to abstain from any potential cases regarding the validity of counting post-election day ballots. Their argument points to a potential conflict of interest because of her prior involvement with former President Bush’s legal team leading up to the controversial Bush V. Gore (2000) case that decided an earlier presidential election in favor of Republican President Bush. However, this is a partisan fear, cutting between party lines. Trump and fellow Republicans claim Justice Barrett will be able to serve her objective duty.
Undoubtedly, Justice Barrett will bring a staunchly conservative point of view to her role on the Supreme Court. In her brief three-year stint as a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett consistently ruled conservatively on issues like gun rights, workplace discrimination, and immigration. Relevant to the current political moment, Reuters finds that Barrett consistently sided with police and prison guards when they were accused of excessive force.
In discussing the Affordable Care Act, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont went as far as to point fingers directly at Judge Barrett, claiming that she had “already given us every indication” of which way she would rule due to her repeated disagreement with Justice Roberts (who had ruled in favor of upholding the ACA in NFIB v. Sebelius) and the President’s nomination itself. To this, Barrett denied any amount of collaboration with the President, saying that it would be a “gross violation of judicial independence” and a “complete violation of the independence of the judiciary” for her to make a commitment to rule a certain way prior to being confronted with the facts and evidence of a case.
Finally, perhaps the most ignored aspect of Judge Barrett’s confirmation was her resumé. There has been a widespread criticism of Barrett’s limited legal experience outside of pure academia; though she has taught law and legal philosophy for over a decade, her career as an active judge has spanned a mere three years. She has never served in any other legal capacity (prosecutor, attorney, solicitor general, attorney general, etc). However, Judge Barrett’s lack of experience is certainly not a first in the realm of SCOTUS nominees. In 1991, George W. Bush nominated and successfully confirmed Justice Clarence Thomas, who, at the time, only had a single year of experience as a federal court of appeals judge.
As much as confirmation hearings are necessary and perhaps boring governmental proceedings, they are also highly-publicized, national events. The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were unequivocally aware of this fact, and spared no expense at injecting their own political agendas in light of the upcoming presidential election. Republican committee members criticized the left on issues such as abortion, court packing, gun control, and constitutional interpretation.
Regardless of the controversy and division surrounding her appointment and confirmation, 48-year-old Amy Coney Barrett is now the 104th Justice of the Supreme Court with a lifetime appointment ahead of her. However, her novelty may be short-lived. President-elect Joe Biden has still refused to take an explicitly firm position on the potential of court packing. Under his presidency, we should be prepared for further discourse seeking political maneuvers in response to Justice Barrett’s confirmation.