As originally intended by the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court was supposed to be weaker than both Congress and the Presidency. Alexander Hamilton said that the judicial branch “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” If this statement still held true today, the rhetoric and controversy surrounding Supreme Court nominations would not be so inflamed.
Unfortunately for the American Republic, the Supreme Court today wields an inordinate amount of power to shape public policy. What the court declares becomes law, regardless of legislative process or state authority. With this power, harmful, unjust and immoral decisions have been handed down by the decrees of nine unelected lawyers. The scope of these decisions has been vast, from restricting school prayer, striking down bans on virtual child pornography, redefining marriage and taking the right to life away from millions of unborn children.
This is why Supreme Court nominations matter so much, and exactly why Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s most recent nomination, should be voted on and confirmed. Barrett, a devout Catholic and mother of seven, has worked as a federal judge and taught law at Notre Dame. Her qualifications are exemplary.
At her nomination she said, “I would discharge the judicial oath, which requires me to administer justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the United States Constitution.”
Critiques of Barrett fall short on all levels. Some say that she shouldn’t be confirmed because it is an election year and the people should decide in November. However, not only is it the president’s constitutional power to appoint judges to fill vacancies, but politicians (senators and presidents) are voted into office to serve full terms. Their duties don’t simply end just because it’s an election year.
Barrett’s faith has also been criticized as pundits have taken aim at the conservative beliefs of her Catholic community. These attacks are not new, as senators previously raised concerns about her faith in federal court hearings for an appointment at the circuit level. As firmly grounded in faith Barrett may be, none of her previous judicial decisions indicate that she wants to establish the sort of theocratic dystopian society many of her critics fear. Contrary to popular belief, Barrett’s serious faith will actually be an asset on the court, rather than a hindrance.
Others are worried because the confirmation of Barrett would mean that there would be some kind of a super-conservative majority on the court. This argument, too, falls flat. As the court currently stands, there are only two reliably conservative justices (Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito), two moderate conservatives (Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch), and one occasional conservative (Chief Justice John Roberts). If confirmed, Barrett would likely join Thomas and Alito as the court’s reliable conservatives—hardly a supermajority.
In the end, what opposition to Barrett is ultimately about is that she threatens the secular Left’s sacrament, abortion. Barrett has stated that life begins at conception, meaning she would likely be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, circumstances allowing. In the 1973 Roe decision, the justices, fresh off overturning the unjust Jim Crow regime, instituted a new unjust regime by creating the right of a mother to end the life of her child.
The bare minimum requirement for a judge in a sane world should be that they recognize the sanctity of every life. Tragically, the world is far from sane, and the tyranny of Roe lives on. However, confirming Amy Coney Barrett could likely be the next step in putting Roe where it belongs: in the ash heap of history.