OPINION: Amy Coney Barrett Exemplifies a Problem in Our Judicial System
Words by Fabliha Hussain
Cover Photo by Maria Oswalt on Unsplash
A week before election day, President Trump’s controversial pick for the Supreme Court was confirmed for Amy Coney Barrett. With strong support from Republicans but protests from Democrats, Judge Barrett was sworn in with 52 to 48 votes after a judicial hearing. With the Supreme Court split between liberals and conservatives, appointing a new judge became a strained topic with Republicans vying for majority control. Considering that President Trump, who was soon to be out of office, took the chance to create permanent repercussions with his decisions, outrage was expressed, and tensions were rising with the upcoming appointment. Barrett is a strong conservative and a highly religious Christian woman. Her past rulings have indicated that she leans right significantly. Although she has also asserted that her own views would not affect her future rulings concerning supreme court cases, can this really be the case?
Her views themselves are conservative and as seen by her past rulings, she rules in favor of a lot of right leaning politics. Barrett’s nomination came after the untimely death of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, leaving democrats vulnerable to a majority conservative supreme court. Barrett’s confirmation solidified President Trump’s legacy in the supreme court with now a total of six conservative judges out of nine. This makes it increasingly difficult for the court to make liberal rulings in favor of abortion, immigrant rights, etc.
Barrett’s history speaks for itself. In Torry vs. City of Chicago, for example, she ruled that officers were reasonable in stopping and harassing a group of men.[1] Three black men were Terry stopped and detained by police who were investigating a shooting. The police had no memory of why they found the black men suspicious. Even without solid evidence to support their response in harassing these men, Barrett still ruled that the police were in the right and granted them qualified immunity, protection from civil suits.[2] She has also sided for gun rights, stating in Kanter v. Barr, felons should still have the right to bear arms.[3] The court wanted to strip felons of their right to own guns, but Barrett stated that non-violent offenders should not lose their constitutional rights.[4] She is a staunch supporter of the second amendment with no regards to the consequences of her rulings and how others will be affected by upholding these individual rights. Barrett shows time and time again that she aligns herself with conservative values and does not rule in favor of BIPOC peoples, immigrants, or even the safety of citizens as a whole.
Having her on the Supreme Court only serves to further aggravate the deep divisions in the United States. We are a highly divided country in itself but with our Supreme Court most likely ruling conservatively more often, it is difficult to not feel that these divisions are being deepened. President Elect Joe Biden will struggle to unite the country as the judicial system currently tilts in favor of conservative values. Biden can be stopped by the checks and balances instated to keep a power balance. Is there a balance, however, when the right has majority control? The fear is that the left will not be heard and people’s right would be endangered accordingly. Barret is expected to be one of the forces opposing Biden as he attempts to rebuild the nation from the ground up. The damage instilled by Trump during his term has a lifelong effect on Biden’s term in the form of Barret herself.
Barret is also an originalist. As an originalist, she believes that judges should attempt to interpret the Constitution as the authors intended it to be. The issue with this is that life is not the same as it was when the Constitution was written. If she truly wants to interpret the Constitution in an originalist fashion, then she would step down from her post as judge since women were not allowed to be a Supreme Court judge at the Constitution’s inception when women had limited rights. Frankly, society has changed, people have changed, and standards have changed. Women and BIPOC people have more rights now than they did back when the Constitution was written. Rights that they should have had at that time, rights that they fought for, and rights that they still have to keep fighting for. Barrett is an obstacle to the rights that minorities have fought for with tooth and nail for decades. Deciding to interpret the Constitution as it was written in a time when so many groups lacked rights is not the approach judges should take if they are to be bipartisan (as the position is intended). Judges need to be flexible, and they should not allow their own personal views to affect their rulings. Barret argued and deflected time and time again that she would not let her personal views affect her job. Nonetheless, a political analysis of Barrett’s rulings showed that she did rule conservatively even though she denies that her conservative views do not affect her choices. If they truly did not, then it stands to reason that she should not rule truly liberal or truly conservative; data, however, shows otherwise.[5] When one’s views are as strong as Barrett’s, however, it becomes difficult to separate.
With a new president, things might get better, but things also might not. Instating Barrett is a surefire way for Republicans to have more control over the judicial branch. Going into the future, we have to be more aware of what judges are doing and how we will all be affected whether we like it or not.
[1] The Jurisprudence of Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett
[2] Torry v. City of Chicago, No. 18-1935 (7th Cir. 2019)
[3] The Jurisprudence of Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett
[4] On key issues: Statements and rulings by Amy Coney Barrett
[5] Amy Coney Barrett is conservative. New data shows us how conservative.
