Amy Coney Barrett has established herself as a brilliant legal mind with sterling credentials and a commitment to interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning. Her confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court should be a slam dunk.
Before becoming an appellate judge in 2017, Barrett had established herself as a leading academic while serving as a law professor at Notre Dame, where she herself graduated at the top of her class. She also served as a law clerk to conservative icon Antonin Scalia, whom she admired for his interest in originalism and textualism. It’s all the more amazing that Barrett was able to achieve all of these things while being a dedicated mother to seven children.
In remarks at the White House following the announcement of her nomination, Barrett was gracious and deferential to the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom she would be replacing if confirmed. Barrett highlighted the close friendship Ginsburg and Scalia maintained, invoking it as an inspiring example of how passionate people with diametrically opposed views could disagree civilly and not let it affect their personal relationship.
Describing Scalia as her mentor, Barrett said, “His judicial philosophy is mine too. A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they may hold.”
In her last three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett has earned a reputation for intelligently written and well-reasoned opinions and dissents that are guided by the law. When the 7th Circuit upheld a law that barred somebody convicted of mail fraud from buying a gun, Barrett offered a nuanced dissent — arguing, based on historical analysis, that while states could bar convicted felons from possessing guns, they could only do so for violent and dangerous ones. In another case, Barrett wrote an opinion that rejected the “qualified immunity” claim of a detective who was accused of framing a man for murdering his mother. At a time when police misconduct has been the subject of national controversy, her record suggests she would not reflexively protect officers if the facts and law do not support doing so.
Her intellect and character have earned her praise well beyond the conservative legal world.
Noah Feldman, a liberal Harvard Law professor who clerked at the Supreme Court at the same time Barrett did, wrote that she would be “highly qualified” to serve as a Supreme Court justice.
“I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions,” he explained in a Bloomberg op-ed. “Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed.”
Feldman explained that Barrett “stood out” at the Supreme Court among the 30 clerks — who are typically the most promising young lawyers in the country. “When assigned to work on an extremely complex, difficult case, especially one involving a hard-to-comprehend statutory scheme, I would first go to Barrett to explain it to me,” he recounted.
Without being able to raise a serious objection to her qualifications, it’s no surprise that the liberal media are already testing out various other lines of attack. One has been to revive the same anti-Catholic attacks that Democrats unsuccessfully deployed against her in her last confirmation hearings. Back then, the ranking Senate Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, infamously suggested that Barrett wouldn’t be able to rule fairly because “the dogma lives loudly within” her.
Democrats will also try to argue that she’s a lock to overturn Obamacare and steal the election for President Trump, despite the fact that everything in her background suggests she would strictly follow the law and Constitution in her opinions rather than be dictated by partisan bias or personal loyalty.
The most common argument, of course, will be to sidestep Barrett’s obvious qualifications and instead make a procedural argument against confirming a judge during a presidential election year, citing the Merrick Garland precedent. The two situations are not the same because, in 2016, there was divided control of government. Had Democrats controlled the Senate at that time, there is no doubt that they would have confirmed a justice — and somebody much more liberal and younger than Garland. This time, however, Republicans control both the White House and Senate and have the power to confirm her.
Republicans should also feel confident going into the confirmation stage. Barrett was already well vetted during her contentious appellate nomination and has already withstood a trial by fire due to Feinstein’s anti-Catholic barrage. There is every reason to believe she will be prepared for the brutal confirmation battle to come. Republicans should hold hearings so that the public can be introduced to Barrett. She should be asked to respond to reasonable requests for questionnaires and paperwork, but Republicans should not cave in to every stalling tactic by Democrats, who proved during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings that they cannot be trusted to operate in good faith. Instead, Democrats will use any delay in a desperate attempt to dig up whatever dirt they can on Barrett, whether or not it has any basis in reality.
Trump has done his job by following through on his promise by appointing an indisputably well-qualified judge who will be guided by the Constitution in her rulings. Now, it’s up to Republicans to get the job done and move forward toward confirming her without delay.
