By Sabahat Rahman ‘21 and Michael Korvyakov ‘23
There is nobody President Donald Trump P’00 could have nominated who better exemplifies the disposition and temperament of a Supreme Court justice than U.S. Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Not only is Barrett intelligent and experienced, she also will uphold the U.S. Constitution to the fullest extent.
Judge Barrett is an outstanding student, professor, and jurist. She was awarded magna cum laude and named the “most outstanding English department graduate” upon her graduation from Rhodes College, where she received her undergraduate degree in 1994. On full scholarship, Barrett went on to graduate from Notre Dame Law School at the top of her class in 1997.
In 2002, Judge Barrett returned to the University of Notre Dame to teach law and was awarded the “Distinguished Professor of the Year Award” three times.
Judge Barrett served on the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a group within the federal judiciary branch tasked with setting rules on civil procedure, from 2010 to 2016. And, since 2017, Barrett has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Not only does Judge Barrett have extensive law experience, but she has held several high-level court positions. And, as if this wasn’t enough of a testament to her impressive career, her former and current colleagues have passionately pushed for her appointment to numerous major judicial positions.
Notre Dame law professor O. Carter Snead said that Judge Barrett “doesn’t go in with an ideological sort of conclusion in search of justifications. She goes in with a genuine, open, scholarly mind, tackling a question.” In a letter in support of her nomination to the Court of Appeals in 2017, her colleagues from Notre Dame described her as “a model of the fair, impartial, and sympathetic judge.”
Equally as important as her exemplary character and academic success is her commitment to constitutional values. A Supreme Court justice should interpret the Constitution as it’s written and act as an impartial arbiter of the law.
Judge Barrett is a self-proclaimed originalist. In other words, she interprets the Constitution as it was originally intended. Her colleague at Notre Dame said, “Judge Barrett has shown that her role as a judge would be to try to do her very best to interpret the statutes or to read the Constitution as it is and discern the actual meaning in those documents — rather than imposing on them a particular ideological framework.”
Because of this, Barrett’s appointment could lead to needed progress with regard to gun rights; her interpretation of the Constitution is one that supports Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Some have tried to taint her excellent record by spreading rumors and conspiracies. For instance, Newsweek published an article reporting that People of Praise, Judge Barrett’s religious organization, served as the inspiration for Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale. This statement was found to be false by fact-checking website Snopes.com, forcing Newsweek to issue a correction.
When it comes to selecting a Supreme Court justice, what matters to the left is not the nominee and their qualifications but rather the nominating party. Those who are attacking Judge Barrett should deeply reconsider whether they’re attacking her values and work ethic or, rather, the man who nominated her.
– Michael Korvyakov ’23
U.S. Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett is as conservative as her possible predecessor Ruth Bader Ginsburg was liberal. According to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, Judge Barrett is “the ultimate ‘deliverable’ for conservative votes.”
Of course, being a conservative doesn’t equate to being a bad person. The issue I have with Judge Barrett is that many of her principles contradict my interpretations of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
For one, Barrett is linked to a Christian group called People of Praise, which has published guidelines stating that “sexual relations should only happen between heterosexual married couples.” To that end, the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, called her “an absolute threat to LGBTQ+ rights.”
Judge Barrett is also passionately pro-life, believing that “Many liberals and conservatives would support restricting, if not outright overturning Roe v. Wade,” which she has called an “erroneous decision.” She joined the University Faculty for Life chapter at the University of Notre Dame, where she is a law school professor.
Furthermore, Judge Barrett’s religion may play a prominent role in her court decisions. She has asserted that the Supreme Court should conform its behavior to the standards of the Church. Additionally, in a 1998 article she co-authored, Judge Barrett rejected the notion that judges must value the Constitution more than their faith.
This brings me to what I see as the larger problem with the Supreme Court nomination and appointment process. As of right now, according to the Constitution, the president “shall nominate” and, “with the advice and consent of the Senate,” appoint justices to the Supreme Court.
This is a problem: why should President Donald Trump P’00 and the Senate have the power to select and confirm Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court if her decisions will more directly affect ordinary Americans? I believe Supreme Court appointments would be much more effective as public elections.
Why? In theory, the Supreme Court is supposed to be the most unbiased court in the U.S. In practice, its judges are carefully picked and approved with the intent of accommodating a president or party’s political agenda.
For instance, in 2016, President Barack Obama nominated former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.
In response, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vetoed the nomination. Senator McConnell’s decision was clearly driven by his desire to maintain Scalia’s conservative jurisprudence on the Court.
Our current system blurs the line between partisanship and justice. Judge Barrett’s nomination is only the latest example of this trend.
However, in Judge Barrett’s case, the stakes are particularly high. With her conservative stances, Judge Barrett is sure to tip the balance of power on the court even further to the right. As a result, LGBTQ+ and abortion rights are in danger.
I don’t think of myself as either a conservative or a liberal; I like to take issues as they come. But regarding Judge Barrett’s nomination, I see a judge who is incapable of differentiating between her political and religious views, which could inhibit the Supreme Court from formulating moderate and impartial judgements for decades to come.
– Sabahat Rahman ’21
