Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a target for the Left because she’s successful in both her high-profile career and in her personal life. This is hypocritical given that the modern-day feminist movement constantly contends “women can have it all.” Instead of celebrating Barrett’s accomplishments, the same people who demand gender equality are criticizing her. Her abilities and intentions as both a jurist and a mother are questioned simply because she stands on the wrong side of the political aisle, especially in the Trump era.
Barrett’s introduction as President Trump’s third nominee to the high court brought with it a torrent of unjust criticism. Not only has she been described as a pro-life radical who will bring an end to Obamacare and Roe v. Wade, but her Catholic faith and her family’s two adoptions have been heavily scrutinized — all because she emulates the late Justice Antonin Scalia and has been hand-picked by Trump to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. During her acceptance speech in the Rose Garden, Barrett stated, “Our children are my greatest joy,” before praising her husband for his help as they parent a large family while both navigating demanding careers. This was a refreshing reminder that Barrett prizes family first and foremost.
On Monday, Tom Scocca of Slate wrote that Barrett’s admiration for Ginsburg reveals she is “a shameless, cynical careerist who believes nobody can stop her.” Scocca can’t believe Barrett won’t respect the supposed dying wish of the late justice and decline a nomination until after the election. Scocca argues that the Barrett nomination is unfair, writing, “What sort of prospective Supreme Court justice believes a president should get five years’ worth of court picks in a four-year term?”
In reality, the Barrett nomination is within the president’s four-year term and completely in line with the law. Scocca scoffs at Barrett’s “charismatic Catholic religious identity” and “her traditionalist wife-and-mother persona,” as if that hasn’t already been under attack by a vicious media. He surmises that “what’s wrong with Barrett isn’t that she’s too pious, or that she’s submissive in her personal life. It’s that she’s bent on making herself one of the nine most powerful judges in the country.”
Barrett has undergone a kind of intense examination never before seen by a female Supreme Court nominee. That Trump nominated her automatically makes her devious in the eyes of his opponents. This is despite her own record of success and impartiality and worth as a wife and mother. Her ability to do well in all aspects of life matters little. Existing as a staunch Catholic, wife, mother, and competent judge somehow makes her a deceitful caricature who should decline an opportunity.
Throughout the days of questioning, it was clear that many Democratic senators believed either Scalia or Trump was sitting before them in the nominee’s seat. Barrett was treated as an exact copy or a loyal representative of either man. This was unfair to a woman who, by every account, is an independent jurist with extraordinary capabilities. She may share Scalia’s philosophy and may have been nominated by a divisive leader, but she is her own person, both privately and professionally. This didn’t keep some senators from following unrestrained lines of attack. Instead of asking the nominee about cases and precedent, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse used his time on Tuesday to take everyone on a bizarre journey through his claim that “dark money” is behind her nomination. When it came to her first turn, Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono used some of her time to criticize Barrett’s use of the term “sexual preference” when discussing gay people. The faux outrage was designed to make her look anti-LGBT without a shred of evidence. And on Thursday, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said, “We really don’t know what she thinks about any issues, any major issues. She hides behind originalism,” as if he and his colleagues aren’t aware that this lack of bias is exactly what a Supreme Court nominee should present.
Watching the Barrett nomination process is actually an encouragement to young women who desire both fulfilling personal and professional lives. Barrett has reached career heights that few ever will while maintaining devotion to her husband and seven children. This combination places her in the Left’s line of fire, especially since she is a devout Catholic. The idea that one area of her life must suffer greatly just because the other exists is nonsense. So is wondering whether that dynamic makes her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Women with careers and children must institute a work-life balance that is best for them and their responsibilities. “Having it all” has always required organization, compromise, and outside help.
Barrett isn’t secretly neglecting career duties or treating her children as nuisances. She is doing well and doing so with grace. This doesn’t mean she is perfect.
Apparently, a successful wife, mother, and career woman who accepts a lawful nomination to the Supreme Court is wrong for being good at all three — but only because a Republican president selected her.
