Amy Coney Barrett: The Newest Supreme Court Justice

Tweet
Amidst the changing political climate, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was inducted into the US Supreme Court in late October, replacing the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Since joining the virtuous federal judiciary, Justice Barrett remains under a national microscope of criticism. Her conservative sentiment on the connection between church and state generated mixed emotions as experts question her qualifications to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. The question arises: what does the induction of Amy Coney Barrett hold for the future of the United States? 

Judge Barrett has taught and researched in the fields of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation for 24 years. Her outstanding record in academia has been published in certified journals, including the Columbia, Virginia, and Texas Law Reviews. Having served as Chief Justice on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, she was selected as the “Distinguished Professor of the Year” by three of her alma mater’s graduating classes. Judge Barrett earned her Bachelor’s degree in English literature from Rhodes College and her Juris Doctor degree from Notre Dame Law School. She received the Hoynes Prize, the law school’s highest honor, as the valedictorian. 

Her education complements the record of the other eight Supreme Court Justices, with alma matters such as Harvard, Yale, and Columbia Law Schools being the most notable. While Notre Dame may not be an Ivy League school, it still ranks in the top 22 law schools in the United States.

While she certainly has an impressive academic record, her political views and lack of experience are what have caused controversy among liberals. Justice Barrett has served as a judge on numerous cases concerned with the 2nd Amendment, immigration, and abortion. However, this past experience only extends to approximately three years. What primarily upsets many democrats is her interpretation of implementing constitutional law. 

Her views on upholding the judicial law revolve around the idea of “originalism.” The New York Times’s definition explains that, “Originalists believe that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it was adopted and that it can change only by constitutional amendment.” They strictly abide by the concept of following the original intentions written behind each law and how it was implemented by the founding fathers. Many liberals and other folks on the left view this sentiment as dangerous for Supreme Court decisions as her bias may have a lasting impact on law and order in the US. 

However, the sole purpose of a Supreme Court Justice is to uphold and abide by the judicial philosophy of the Constitution. Placing conservatism and liberalism aside, the job of a Supreme Court Justice is to implement the constitutional law into each case that is given and make sure that justice is served according to the constitution. When nominated as a federal judiciary judge, all biases should be virtually nonexistent as the laws specifically written within the constitution are the only factors that could influence any decision. 

Her recent conduct has been questionable as it demonstrates a strong conservative sentiment. The recent induction of Justice Amy Coney Barrett may have caused tension between democrats and republicans. It remains to be seen if this event will have the consequences some fear.