What Does Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Mean for the Country?

The controversial nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court has drawn a lot of attention recently. This month, the Judiciary Committee approved her nomination and recommended her to the Senate. On October 26th, the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm her, and Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice. 

Because of concerns that she is a conservative justice, many Democrats are arguing they should pack the court the next time they have control of both Congress and the White House. Packing the Supreme Court means the Democrats would add additional seats for liberal justices to make the court majority liberal. Court packing could potentially be effective and is legal, as the Constitution does not explicitly state how many justices should be on the Supreme Court.

There are arguments to be made for packing. Under the Obama administration, there was a Supreme Court justice opening after conservative Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016. Former President Obama nominated Merrick Garland; however, the decision was delayed when the Republican Senate leader refused to consider the nomination for approximately 11 months. Once President Trump was elected, the position was filled by conservative Neil Gorsuch in April. All that was to say, some Democrats feel cheated out of a Supreme Court position. 

At the time, Republicans argued that the decision should be delayed until after the election so that the people could have input in their next Supreme Court justice. Many have called attention to the hypocrisy of Barrett’s nomination because Republicans pushed to hold off on considering Garland’s nomination for a year until after the 2016 election, yet in 2020, with a Republican as president, Barrett’s nomination was pushed through only eight days before the upcoming election as opposed to eight months.

While court packing may seem justified, there are problems to consider. For example, packing the court would set a precedent, and the next time Republicans control both the White House and Congress, they could pack in the same way. Eventually, the court would become overly crowded. Not to mention, the Supreme Court would become a more partisan environment, while judges are supposed to be neutral in their decisions. Each party would intentionally add liberals or conservatives to the Court, undermining the Court’s credibility if judges and seats are being added due to their political affiliations.

To the point, packing is a hypothetical; however, Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation is not. Her appointment could influence the lives and rights of many Americans, especially our current president. Trump has some degree of favoritism for Amy Coney Barrett, considering he nominated her. Her decisions likely will align with the beliefs of the president and tend to, in return, favor his goals. A common concern is if she would support President Trump if he tried to self-pardon, or use his presidential ability to pardon himself if convicted of a crime. Additionally, her nomination in itself may help Trump gain popularity for re-election. Finally, if the election were to be contested, her vote could potentially have a major impact and sway the election in Trump’s favor. 

Barrett’s own background is important to consider in what she may bring to the Supreme Court. In general, many would argue she is qualified for the position. The American Bar Association has officially stated that she is well qualified for the Supreme Court; she has graduated from and taught at Notre Dame Law School, and in 2017, President Trump nominated her as a judge to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an argument for her experience. However, some critics argue that she has spent more time teaching than being in the courtroom. 

Judge Barrett seems to make conservative decisions, and she publicly criticized the Supreme Court’s recent decisions to uphold the Affordable Care Act, which Trump has made a goal of revoking during his reelection campaign. Revocation of this act is a large concern for many, especially in the time of a pandemic, as it could hurt many low-income Americans who rely on the act for health insurance. Among the American people, she has the support of the majority of Republicans and does not have the support of many Democrats. More specifically, Barrett has the support of most Christian conservatives, which brings up the discussion surrounding her religious background.

Barrett is a devout Catholic, leading many to believe she may be swayed by her religion and will incorporate her religious beliefs into her Supreme Court decisions. She has officially and repeatedly stated that her religion cannot hold power over her decisions and obligation to uphold the law in reference to the death penalty, LGBTQ+ rights, etc. “My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge,” Barrett said. Granted, we have learned with politics, elections, and nominations that statements do not always correspond with future actions. Personally, I am not sure if we should take her religion so strongly into account. If her religion does affect her decisions as a judge, there is a clear ethical problem. At the same time, I do not think her religion should have affected her nomination; if it did, she would have faced discrimination based on her faith. 

An interesting concept to explore is if she adds to the diversity and representation within the Supreme Court. She is a woman, yet I don’t believe her confirmation was a victory for women or underrepresented communities. Many are concerned about how Barrett will affect LGBTQ+ rights, including laws surrounding harassment, discrimination, and marriage. Like I mentioned before, there are concerns about healthcare, including the Affordable Care Act and women’s healthcare. The Roe v. Wade precedent could be at stake here, as we know Barrett has personal beliefs against abortion. 

Regardless of whether you support Barrett or not, I think her confirmation is an insult to the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Barrett’s views threaten much of RGB’s impact on women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and, honestly, most Americans. Ginsburg’s dying wish “that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed” was not honored. This confirmation could have lasting impacts that unravel Justice Ginsburg’s legacy.