What kind of Supreme Court justice is Amy Coney Barrett going to be?
That appeared to be the question a new expose by New York Times hack Jodi Kantor attempted to answer. Published Sunday, the lengthy article features analysis of the Trump appointee’s SCOTUS record thus far, as well as comments from former associates and Court watchers on her jurisprudence and how she approaches legal questions.
The goal, as it seems, is to decipher whether the Catholic mother of seven will follow in the originalist philosophy of her old boss (former Justice Antonin Scalia) or go the way of disappointing Republican appointees such as former Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter.
But the answer isn’t clear cut — at least, not yet.
To be sure, Barrett’s SCOTUS tenure has not been what many outside Court observers were expecting. Despite having clerked for Scalia and previously proclaimed to share his jurisprudence, the Trump appointee has become a bit of a wild card on key issues making their way to the high court.
A Times analysis of her SCOTUS career purports to show that Barrett’s inclination to vote with the majority on what the outlet classifies as “conservative decisions” has declined since the Court’s 2021-2022 term, while her penchant for signing onto so-called “liberal decisions” has risen over the same time frame. The Times’ review of Barrett’s record also seems to indicate that her “share of conservative votes” has declined since the 2021-2022 term, slightly more than that of Chief Justice John Roberts.
“In interviews, some liberals who considered the court lost when [Barrett] was appointed have used phrases like, ‘It’s all on Amy.’ When Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed on nonunanimous decisions this term, Justice Barrett joined them 82 percent of the time — up from 39 percent of the time in her first term,” the report reads.
As noted by the outlet, however, Barrett has been an instrumental vote in several high-profile cases that have come before the high court in recent years. Whether it was overturning Roe v. Wade and Chevron deference, or upholding certain religious liberties and other constitutional protections, Barrett’s role in those respective decisions — which Kantor whined has “moved the court’s outcomes dramatically to the right” — was pivotal.
But the bigger issue with Barrett seems to be her apparent trepidation in taking up cases with national implications that require the Court’s immediate attention. In other words, she’s a procedure-oriented justice who doesn’t appear eager to address every major constitutional question that comes to the Court so early in her SCOTUS career.
Such a dilemma was apparently at issue when the justices were deliberating whether to hear the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that eventually led to Roe‘s demise. Echoing its prior reporting, the Times, citing two anonymous sources, claimed that Barrett switched her vote on if SCOTUS should take up the matter.
Per the article, “Justice Barrett initially voted with” Alito, Thomas, and Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to take up the case, “but voiced concerns about taking on such a big issue so soon after her arrival at the court, then switched to a no.” (Despite her alleged resistance to considering the matter, Barrett ultimately sided with the majority in sending Roe to the dustbin of history.)
Given legacy media’s history of using unnamed sources to advance their preferred narratives, it’s entirely fair to question the accuracy of these reported claims. But regardless of their validity, there are plenty of other instances in which Barrett has shirked away from taking up cases of national importance. Within the past few weeks alone, the Trump appointee has sided with the Court’s majority in refusing to consider pivotal matters involving the First and Second Amendments.
Such behavior could have been rationalized early on in Barrett’s career as a justice. Her sudden appointment and subsequent confirmation to the Court occurred in fall 2020 — when SCOTUS typically begins their annual terms. The difficulty of having to get caught up to speed on the high court’s 2020-2021 docket and assemble a team of law clerks and staff was only further compounded by the unusual circumstances brought about by the Covid outbreak and its accompanying restrictions.
That Barrett’s declination to take up significant cases continues to this day, however, is troubling.
What is becoming clear, as further indicated by the Times report, is that Barrett is a justice who’s still finding her way on the nation’s highest court. While she has demonstrated an ability to adhere to originalist doctrine, her unwillingness to employ it consistently and hear cases that require its immediate application raise questions about what the remainder of her SCOTUS career will look like.
But the reality is that Americans don’t have time for Barrett to spend years figuring out what kind of justice she wants to be.
For decades, the left has weaponized the legal system to target and harass those who refuse to kneel before their warped worldview, from cake artist Jack Phillips to web designer Lorie Smith. In more recent months, this death-by-a-thousand-lawsuits strategy has been used to sabotage the new Trump administration.
Since President Trump’s return to office, left-wing activists and organizations have filed hundreds of lawsuits challenging his lawful attempts to fulfill the promises he made to voters last year. With assistance from predominantly Democrat-appointed lower court judges, this judicial coup has effectively sought to stop the president from executing his Article II powers, throwing America’s separation of powers into turmoil.
Aside from Thomas and Alito, the other justices (including Barrett) have been reluctant to shut down this unconstitutional power grab. Every day the Court chooses not to act is another day the votes of Americans who voted for Trump are delegitimized.
America needs Supreme Court justices who will faithfully uphold their Constitution as written — not politicians who make judicial decisions based on what looks good for their careers or policy preferences. Barrett has shown that she is capable of the latter. Whether she decides to consistently stand by that jurisprudence and become the reliable originalist Americans need her to be, however, is up to her.