By way of a narrow Senate vote, the Supreme Court has fallen completely under conservative control. The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg left an empty seat on the court for which President Trump rushed to choose a nominee: Amy Coney Barrett, a right-wing judge from a tight-knit, secretive, and fervently religious community in Louisiana. At first glance, she may seem like an intellectual and pragmatic judge, loyal to the Constitution and unbiased by her rather extreme religious and philosophical views, as she and Trump have repeatedly claimed. However, a deeper look into her judicial and personal records reveals dark and troubling forebodings of what is to come now that she’s been appointed to the highest court in the land.
First of all, Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment counters the precedent set during the end of the Obama administration and falls in with the general political trend of fast-tracking judicial confirmations when the Senate and President belong to the same party. Obama nominated Merrick Garland to succeed the deceased Antonin Scalia in March of 2016, but Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell dismissed the appointment. He demanded that a replacement be chosen by the next president elected, despite the fact that there was sufficient time to confirm the nominee in the Senate. It’s now the day of the general election, yet Amy Coney Barrett, who has ironically likened herself and her judicial philosophy to the late Scalia, was in confirmation hearings just last month, having been nominated only a few days prior. If President Obama was denied the nomination with months and months to go until the election, surely the same policy would apply to President Trump, even more so because he’s slated to lose power? But contrary to common sense, the Senate rushed at breakneck speed to confirm her, a shady yet potent decision which could tip the Court into far right territory and over- turn landmark cases, stripping countless Americans of liberties they’ve enjoyed, no, relied upon for decades.
The Supreme Court now has a 6-3 conservative majority, which allows for a cascade of regressive rulings. Two conservatives now have to dissent to prevent any right-aligned decision from taking effect, and with the conservative leanings of most of Trump’s appointees, that quota will be difficult to fulfill on most issues. The combined loss of a powerful liberal dissenter, the late Ginsburg, and the addition of a diehard conservative, Barrett, is liable to result in repealment of many of the advances towards equal rights made in recent years. Such cornerstones of reproductive justice as Roe v. Wade are in danger of being over- turned, meaning anyone with a uterus is likely to lose the option of abortion. Barrett has already stated that she does not think Roe deserves untouchable status. While she has not yet stated a clear intention to overrule it, her pro-forced-birth stance has revealed itself through lectures administered at the University of Notre Dame, where she also joined an anti-abortion rights faculty group. Her views have been openly lauded by conservatives and evangelicals, groups which have readily expressed their intention to take away the right to safe, legal abortion once and for all. Along with her desire to control other people’s bodies, Barrett has shown herself to be an opponent of marriage equality as well. The cult to which she belongs, the People of Praise, is strictly heteronormative, adheres to antiquated gender norms, and rejects openly gay people. With Barrett on the Court, Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case which allowed same-sex couples the right to marry, is in tangible danger of being overturned, which would be a major setback in the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ equality. Although Barrett has repeatedly stated that her personal views do not affect her judicial career, research has determined that judges’ personal and partisan ideologies do in fact play a significant role in how they rule. After all, if they are really impartial, why do they belong to political parties? Openly conservative judges strongly tend to make decisions that align with their personal beliefs.
The uproar over Barrett’s views is steeped in fear for the future of women and the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the future of American secularism. The separation of church and state is written into the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, yet it has not traditionally been respected (cf. the tax-exempt status of churches, government funding of religious schools, etc.). Barrett’s appointment will likely worsen the already breached secularism and religious freedom that is supposed to be a founding principle of this country. As previously mentioned, she belongs to the People of Praise, an insular group with deeply entrenched values of community, piety, and social traditionalism. Its religious doctrine includes influences from both Catholicism and charismatic worship and its adherents often play a massive role in each others’ spiritual and personal lives; membership in this group is more weighty than simply belonging to a church or religious sect. The chilling creed heavily emphasizes the differences between men and women and seeks to define their roles and future opportunities for them. Barrett’s relatively lofty career is actually anomalous, but that does not mean she is a feminist. Women in the community supposedly have nominal equality, but the leadership is almost entirely male and women are placed into separate, subordinate spheres of influence by a 2009 document procured by the New York Times. Again, marriage is considered relegated to heterosexual couples, and patriarchy within the household is encouraged—husbands’ duties as outlined by the group include “correcting” their wives, who are advised to “take their instruction seriously”. If judges’ personal beliefs have a heavy hand in shaping the way they rule, it follows that Barrett’s extreme leanings toward the religious right are likely if not guaranteed to trickle into her policy decisions.
As the farce that is Amy Coney Barrett’s rushed confirmation hearings continued, she showed herself to be comparable to the President himself in her ability to evade questions. She refused to comment on whether Trump can avoid ceding power should he lose the election, whether it is wrong to separate children from their families, or whether climate change is real. Just like Trump’s refusal to condemn white supremacy, her silence speaks volumes. Her refusal to acknowledge even the most basic of scientific truths is incredibly disheartening for a young, pragmatic American such as myself, and even more so for those who live in areas that have been ravaged by wildfires, droughts, and catastrophic hurricanes. Roughly half of the people in this country will be affected should our right to abortion be repealed, not to mention the multitude of my LGBTQ+ comrades who will lose the right to marry the people they love. Amidst the current political climate of lies, vitriol, and obfuscation, I, along with so many others, seek truth, justice, and clarity. Amy Coney Barrett will provide none of these, and that is an unfathomable disservice to the American people.