No, Seriously, Amy Coney Barrett Would Be A Dumpster Fire Of A Supreme Court Justice

Ah, the rehabilitation of Supreme Court front runner Amy Coney Barrett has begun! Even in Above the Law’s own digital pages, there’s a piece written by David Lat that breathlessly touts Coney Barrett’s (and other SCOTUS contenders’) elite pedigree and sparkling personality.

In the subtweet of the blogging world — an uncredited link — Lat references the issues that myself and others have with a potential Justice Coney Barrett:

She’s very conservative and very Catholic, and so liberals and progressives are freaking out over how she might rule as a justice, especially on such precedents as Roe v. Wade (which she is bound to follow as a lower-court judge, but able to revisit as a Supreme Court justice).

But here’s the thing, as I said in my initial article, I don’t care that Coney Barrett is “very Catholic” — that isn’t the problem, it’s her jurisprudence. Not that FedSoc talking points actually pay attention to nuance. Certainly not when crying “religious freedom” can “galvaniz[e] evangelicals and Catholics in midwestern battleground states.”

But if you want more proof her religion isn’t the problem: I don’t even mention the (utterly batshit) point about her membership in the religious group that ACTUALLY inspired The Handmaid’s Tale. [Ed. note: Newsweek, the original source for this, has adjusted their language slightly to say groups along the lines of the one Coney Barrett is affiliated with inspired Margaret Atwood. Still batshit.] Our country is basically on the Gilead Express and it doesn’t get a mention. Also, of note, my very favorite Supreme Court justice is Catholic — Sonia Sotomayor. (And no, it’s not an insult to RBG’s memory, she was great, but progressives don’t have to be a monolith.)

And we should realize in the fawning profile of Coney Barrett zero words are written about the kind of Justice she’d be (but progressives are the ones that are reacting without analysis, ummm, okay). Not about the deeply troubling “life begins at conception” comment or her disregard for precedent or that she doesn’t seem to believe in Miranda rights. But her penchant for winning people over? Yup, that makes the cut.

Nobody cares if your nominee is nice. We care about what her tenure on the Court will look like. At least Lat makes some sort of tacit acknowledgment in the piece that Coney Barrett is being set up to be the Justice that overturns a woman’s right to choose, not that it changes his opinion of Coney Barrett as someone whose “advantages are manifest and manifold.” Because what’s such a minor quibble as a woman’s right to choose in the face of someone so charming!?!?!

Here’s the thing — this is a really, really big deal. It’s not just because as someone with a uterus, it is impossible for me not to oppose the approaching erosion of reproductive freedom. But this is only the tip of the iceberg — one the right has been priming the public for since Coney Barrett was one year old. There will surely be other marginalized groups that see their hard won rights take a hit as a very particular sort of conservative philosophy keeps tightening its grip on American jurisprudence. You shouldn’t need your own rights on the chopping block to see the problem with empowering this jurisprudence.

And it’s not just progressives that see a dangerous trend. Eric Posner and Lee Epstein recently made this argument in the New York Times:

The religious right has made no secret of its expectation that President Trump will choose a socially conservative successor to the seat held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And the president will likely deliver, further confirming the power of the religious right.

The conservative legal movement, which at one time was libertarian in spirit, has been hijacked by the religious right. This religious version has left a deep mark on the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts.

A potential Justice Coney Barrett — and the 40+ years she could sit on the Court — is so much more than the final nail in the coffin of women’s reproductive freedom.

UPDATE: Fix the Court has helpfully put up Judge Barrett’s 2019 financial disclosure. The report shows upwards of $2.84 million in investments as of 12/31/19, and two residences — one of which was rented out up until last year. As of May 2017 (last page), the value of those homes was $598,843.

As one might imagine, she’s received $7,000 in FedSoc honoraria between 2015 and 2017 and between 2018 and 2019, she went on 10 trips funded by FedSoc.

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).