Opinion: The Hypocrisy of the Amy Coney Barrett Nomination

Amy Coney Barrett is a 48-year-old mother of 7 who hails from New Orleans. She was a professor at the Notre Dame Law School in Indiana, where she taught constitutional law, the federal courts, and statutory interpretation. At the moment she is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago after being appointed by President Trump and being confirmed by the US Senate in 2017. Barrett also served clerkships for Judge Laurence Silberman and for former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court and The New York Times reported that Barrett was one of Scalia’s favourite clerks. Barrett also shares Scalia’s belief in textualism and she is an originalist. When asked to define originalism she said that it “means that I interpret the Constitution as law and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it”.

Barrett—who’s track record on previous cases indicates that she has more conservative views - has been nominated by President Donald Trump to fill a vacancy left on the Supreme Court by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her legal opinion and comments on gay marriage and abortion have made her a popular pick with more religious conservatives but have earned her a lot of negative opinions from liberals. According to Jonathan Turley (a professor of law at George Washington University), her record on gun rights and immigration show that she would be a reliable vote for the right of the court on many upcoming court cases.

Many people worry that Barrett’s vote would be useful for the conservative majority of the court to push down the Affordable Care Act (an Obama-era provider of healthcare insurance) and overturn Roe v. Wade to tighten laws on abortion. A lot of people believe that she was nominated by Trump so that her vote would be the one to guarantee the nullification of the ACA (which is something that the Trump administration has been trying to do for a while) in the hearing that is set to happen on the 10th of November, after the general election. Nonetheless, when Kamala Harris asked Barrett (during day one of her confirmation hearings) about whether she had heard of President Trump's statement promising to nominate justices who would overturn the affordable care act, Barret replied that she had not made any specific promises to rule a certain way on healthcare legislation.

Another worry is that Barrett’s vote would be used to overturn Roe v. Wade and tighten laws on abortion all across the country. This would be harmful to many women all across the US. Barrett also declined to express her views on abortion and Roe v. Wade when asked during her confirmation hearings.

She also did not commit to any decision regarding recusing herself from a possible Trump v. Biden case to decide the election which left many of us wondering whether she’s just a tool that Trump intends to rely on if he doesn’t win the election.

If Barrett is confirmed, she will also be the youngest member of the current Supreme Court. This means that she will probably be there for the next 30 to 40 years as a Supreme Court position is a lifetime appointment.

My issue isn’t exactly with Amy Coney Barrett herself. My issue is with her nomination and the speed with which her confirmation hearings have begun. Let’s go back to 2016 when Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, vowed that empty Supreme Court positions should be left without being filled if they arise during an election year. This seems the natural thing to do because any vacancies have to be filled by a nomination made by the president; but if the president isn’t going to be serving for much longer, then their nomination will not benefit their administration in any way.

When President Barack Obama tried to fill the vacant seat left by Justice Antonin Scalia who died in February of 2016, Lindsey Graham responded with the following:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said: Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination. And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

Secondly, I found it rather odd that when Obama nominated a more moderate judge to replace Scalia, a conservative judge, his nomination was declined because it was an election year. Yet when Trump nominated a conservative judge to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had one of the steadiest liberal voting records, his nominee’s confirmation hearings were scheduled as quickly as possible despite an ongoing pandemic and the approaching election.

Lastly, as a young feminist, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of my idols, and when I heard of her death I was shocked, saddened and worried. But more importantly, to hear that she was being replaced so quickly by a woman whose record shows that she is probably inclined to voting in favor of undoing a lot of the work that RBG did, made me outraged and furious. RBG’s last wish was that she “will not be replaced until a new president is installed," and I think her speedy replacement is extremely disrespectful to her legacy.

In conclusion, I don’t think Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination is very fair to the people and the democracy that is America, because it doesn’t follow protocol that has been used in the past. I believe that her nomination is just a way for Trump to ensure that his administration’s agenda gets completed and the ACA is nullified, in the event that he loses the election.

For sources please see this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N3gQz60PNHUsIUQHvaKgW6F4UtXkuY64x7j_-fFj5rs/edit?usp=sharing