Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett May Be the Last Straw for the US!

[AdSense-A]

By Nikki Slusher

Last week in my article on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg I had mentioned some of the possible nominations Donald Trump was considering, replacing RBG’s seat on the bench of the US Supreme Court. One of the names mentioned was Amy Coney Barrett, a federal judge for the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. As of today, Judge Barrett has now become the president’s nomination to fill the open seat on the country’s highest court.

But who exactly is Amy Coney Barrett? It must be said that Judge Barrett’s resume is quite impressive. Not only is she a federal judge, Barrett is also a professor at Notre Dame Law School. An alumnus herself, she has been named the professor of the year since 2002. Many of the judge’s colleagues have called her a brilliant scholar and a razor-sharp lawyer. Also, every living law clerk who worked at the Supreme Court during its 1998 term had signed a letter in 2017 endorsing her appeals court nomination, the signatures include all clerks who worked for liberal justices too.

She also calls South Bend, Ind., home with former presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Barrett, 48, is also a mother of seven children and a lifelong devout Catholic. Her religious beliefs were a large portion of the discussion during her federal judgeship nomination. Senator Diane Feinstein had raised concern over Barrett’s reputation among conservatives and defenders of religious freedom, that these convictions could affect her decisions and ultimately the outcomes on the bench. Some issues that Democrats had brought up that they were extremely worried about included abortion and LBGTQ+ rights.

Within hours of her nomination, the judge’s critics have started raising flags about the nominee concerning how her religion may indeed be reflected in her rulings. Earlier this week Elizabeth Wydra, the president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center commented on Barrett’s possible nomination: “Even in her short time on the bench, (Barrett) has very concerning rulings that relate to important issues, like protections for LGBTQ Americans, immigrants, the Affordable Care Act, and abortion rights.” She added, “So we should be concerned about this particular nominee.”

Back in 2006 when Barrett delivered her speech to the graduating law class, she described her vision to be a “different kind of lawyer.” While reminding the graduates that being a lawyer is a means to an end, but specifically to build the “kingdom of God.” She also stated, “If you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”

In a 2013 Texas Law Review article on when the Supreme Court should overturn past decisions, Barrett wrote in agreement that “with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution, and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.” Speaking on the public’s response to hot-button cases, such as Roe v. Wade, “reflects public rejection” on the notion that legal precedent “can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.”

Here are some of her opinions on cases she has ruled on regarding various hot political topics.

Abortion: Barrett signed a dissent which meant she would have been open to rehearing the state of Indiana’s defense of a law banning abortions based on sex, race or disability. Indiana did not seek the appeals court’s review, but the dissent nevertheless referred to “eugenics” and said “none of the (Supreme) Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.”

Sexual Assault: Barrett, along with two other judges, reversed a lower court’s ruling that allowed a former male student to sue Purdue University for suspending him after finding him guilty of sexual assault. The student’s “allegations raise a plausible inference that he was denied an educational benefit on the basis of his sex,” she wrote.

Guns: In dissent, Barrett dissented when the court upheld a decision restricting gun ownership from a felon convicted of mail fraud. She stated that non-violent offenders should not lose their Second Amendment rights to firearms possession.

Immigration: Barrett dissented defending the Trump administration’s rule denying immigrants ability for permanent residency if they become regular users of public assistance.

Race: Barrett aided in blocking efforts from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s to stop an employer from transferring Chicago-area employees based on their race or ethnicity. The EEOC accused AutoZone of making these transfers so that they reflected the area’s demographics. The three dissenting judges defended their decision, stating that the policy “deprived people … of employment opportunities at their preferred geographic location.”

Age Discrimination: Barrett ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not apply when a company’s policies unintentionally impact someone. The ruling went against the plaintiff, a 58-year-old job applicant, who had lost out on a position to a person half his age when the company chose instead to hire someone with less than seven years’ experience.

The judge’s decisions have won praise from conservative lawyers and scholars. Her conservative ideologies mean that if selected, Barrett will turn the 5-4 balance of the SCOTUS to a 6-3 conservative majority. It also means that the court will return to an era of conservatism it has not seen since the 1930s.

It is difficult for liberal justices to secure seats on the SCOTUS bench, but they are imperative in the court upholding its impartiality. Since the addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it is Chief Justice John Roberts who is the swing vote on the conservative’s side. If Barrett joins the current justices, based off of track record the ideological center may now be Justice Kavanaugh.

With only weeks before the election the Senate will obviously rush to give Judge Barrett the lifetime appointment. Many are calling out the hypocrisy as Republicans had blocked President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, citing that it was an election year and the decision should be made by the newly elected president. Some have also begun questioning if this will be the straw the breaks the camel’s back in America.

We are already at the brink of a modern revolution. Americans are divided at a point that has not been seen since before the Civil War. The appointment could be the spark that ignites the explosion between a country on the verge of complete societal unrest. As we continue to watch, the choice will come down to if two Republican senators vote no, but this seems highly unlikely. Only time will tell if history remembers Amy Coney Barrett as judge or justice.

[si-contact-form form=’2′]