Over the last week, the United States Senate has held confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Her nomination to fill former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat spurred controversy from its inception, however, there’s a swath of concerns regarding both the confirmation process and her role on the court should she be confirmed.
In 2016 after the passing of former Justice Antonin Scalia, the Republican-held Senate blocked President Barack Obama from nominating a justice to the Supreme Court given how close Scalia’s death was to the 2016 election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued the election was too close and that the next president better voiced the concerns of the American people and therefore their voice should be heard for the next Supreme Court nomination.
However, after Ginsburg’s death, which happened with half the time left before the election than Scalia’s, McConnell voiced that he would hear the nominee as quickly as possible. In 2016, McConnell was quoted as saying he would also block a Republican nominee were the script flipped, yet we see just four years later the sheer hypocrisy of his and the Senate’s actions.
Additionally, there are many concerns about Barrett’s confirmation. Should she be confirmed, she would be replacing a social justice icon who paved the way for women and minorities to have access to equal opportunities by the law. Barrett on the other hand is publicly in favor of many legal actions that would take back many of these rights for such groups, including overturning Roe v. Wade.
What is most alarming of all is just how political the Supreme Court has become over the last few decades. The court is meant to serve as a legal body independent of any political affiliations. Its role was to interpret the law, and the nine justices who sat on the court were the best at doing so. Their nominations were based on their abilities, not their political ties.
In a different political climate and general national environment, it is highly-likely that Barrett would’ve been confirmed rather swiftly. But given the political schemes and contention soaring throughout Washington and the nation as a whole, it seems she just may barely make it to the court.
While we cannot ignore that individuals have their own political identities and that we can’t expect those who sit on the court to do away with their own, we do have to expect that they should leave their biases at the door and show up ready to do their job rather than further their own personal agendas.
If anything, these hearings highlight Congress’ failures and another arena of heightened polarization between the left and right.
We also recognize the importance of starting local, and that any tangible issues regarding the law start in our own backyards. It takes the power of the politicians and judiciary task forces on the smaller scale to reach a boiling point before it goes higher up.
However, elections and local politics change far more frequently than Supreme Court seats do. As we’ve seen throughout the course of history, a seat is a lifetime role.
The ability for the current administration to stack the court toward a singular party’s side will impact not only the here and now, but the future for the next generation.
If anything, the hearings of last week on top of all we as a nation have endured over the past several months should just serve as more fuel to motivate your vote. We have hammered home the point of voting this year, but keep in mind that the buck doesn’t just stop on Nov. 3. There is work to be done in Congress and at home, as we feel the impact of those closer to our communities a little bit harder than we do nationally.
If we want to stop such drastic issues from reaching the top, we need to start to elicit change at home.
Comment policy
Comments posted to The Brown and White website are reviewed by a moderator before being approved. Incendiary speech or harassing language, including comments targeted at individuals, may be deemed unacceptable and not published. Spam and other soliciting will also be declined.
The Brown and White also reserves the right to not publish entirely anonymous comments.
3 Comments
Barrett is the epitome of a successful professional woman & an inspiration for young women. To denigrate this appointment by Trump suggests a total lack of realism by naive Americans.
Trump was elected in 2016 to serve for 4 years & that includes 2020. It is his job to nominate a replacement & in the history of this country these nominees are ratified whenever the Senate is of the same party as the sitting President.
Failure to appoint & ratify Amy Comey Barrett would have been an insult to those that elected our President in 2016.
“The ability for the current administration to stack the court toward a singular party’s side will impact not only the here and now, but the future for the next generation”.
Why focus your comment on the current Administration? You could have easily said this about Obama and Clinton’s LIBERAL judges moving the Court in their direction.
It’s not “packing the Court” if you honestly believe your earlier comment below (which I doubt):
While we cannot ignore that individuals have their own political identities and that we can’t expect those
who sit on the court to do away with their own, we do have to expect that they should leave their biases at
the door and show up ready to do their job rather than further their own personal agendas.
If you make the assumption that a politician is lying or trying to mislead, you are probably going to be correct. They try to accomplish their goals, re-election is #1, by achieving other goals with the least negative/most positive effect on goal #1.
“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued the election was too close and that the next president better voiced the concerns of the American people and therefore their voice should be heard for the next Supreme Court nomination.” Had President Obama nominated a conservative to the Supreme Court, the Senate would have approved him/her. Why on earth would Obama do that? He nominated a relatively center left judge. Thus the reason for McConnell’s lies: Obama’s choice was reasonable and had a hearing been held, the public would have demanded a favorable outcome. Mitch decided to go for more and cover it up by claiming that the voters should decide; after all Hillary was a shoo-in and people expected that a Democrat would still nominate. If the Republicans still held the Senate, they could still hold out for a moderate, but if they won, special things could happen. Conservative judges were the gold at the end of the rainbow that would make sense to never Trumper Conservatives. Let the voters decide was a lie which Republicans in 2020 ignore because they have the right and power to approve almost any nomination of a qualified individual. Many voters won’t like this but President Trump has alienated so many that only a handful will change their votes because of it. Despite protestations, the Democrats would have done the same thing and indeed have changed their arguments 180^ from 2016. The argument that it is too close to/during and election is another lie/misrepresentation; unless they were stupid or naive they would use an opportunity and political power to their advantage.
“What is most alarming of all is just how political the Supreme Court has become over the last few decades. … Their nominations were based on their abilities, not their political ties.” Lets face it, nominations were always based on political ties. Liberal judges have remained liberal although many conservative appointees have become liberal. Lower courts have mirrored the processes at universities in becoming more liberal.
“Should she be confirmed, she would be replacing a social justice icon who paved the way for women and minorities to have access to equal opportunities by the law. Barrett on the other hand is publicly in favor of many legal actions that would take back many of these rights for such groups, including overturning Roe v. Wade.” Using the quote from the previous paragraph. lets evaluate the social justice icon. “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” Ginsburg said; you can’t get more political than that but let’s discount the dying wish of a fine Supreme Court Justice and go elsewhere. Judge Ginsberg was an activist almost from day one and continued being one until her dying day, obviously using her position to promote her causes. I don’t think her judicial philosophy created much of a impediment to her agenda; “What is most alarming of all is just how political the Supreme Court has become over the last few decades. This is what liberals do, they change things as they see fit.
“… we do have to expect that they should leave their biases at the door and show up ready to do their job rather than further their own personal agendas.” Amy Coney Barrett professes to do this and professed it over and over again at the hearings. Her judicial philosophy is in keeping with the gist of the quote. This is not to say that the complexities of certain cases will not allow her biases to come out. Bias is not inherently a negative word.
“The ability for the current administration to stack the court toward a singular party’s side will impact not only the here and now, but the future for the next generation.” And from the conservative point of view, thank God for it. That is how the Constitution meant it to be. For me judgeships are Donald J Trump’s raison d etre. Despite what DJT and Judge Barrett’s inquisitors say, once judges are appointed, DJT loses control over them.
In honor of all the leading questions asked in the Supreme Court nomination hearings here is one. For sexual entities, plant and animal, when does new life start? This is the question that the Supreme Court punted on in Roe v Wade. Political biases prevented a definitive answer. The science is more settled than for the causes of global warming. The answer is when fundamental change occurs. The verbal blurring comes with asking what fundamental change. Science sees THE fundamental change. The battle rages over what rights do humans absolutely need to exist in a civilized country and what “rights” are desires to live the way an individual wants to live.