Amy Coney Barrett and Religious Conservatism

By: Hannah Ury, Staff Writer

Photo credit: Susan Walsh, AP Photo

In just four years, the Trump Presidency has selected two highly controversial Supreme Court nominations, and it is looking more and more like his second nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, will be confirmed and become a member of the Supreme Court. Thankfully, Barrett does not have any allegations of sexual assault, a rarity in today’s politics, but she does have her fair share of sources of controversy.

When taking a look at her past, it’s easy to like Barrett. She has seven children, two of whom are adopted from Haiti. She is a woman of faith, and she has done extensive work as a judge and a professor, and her students at Notre Dame say she is a great professor who never brought politics into the classroom. It is also refreshing to see a woman rise so easily to power in a career field dominated by men. However, do not expect the rights of women to advance at all should Barrett be confirmed.

Barrett would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance, and organizations like Planned Parenthood would be weakened even further than they already have been. Although Americans have little say in the process of picking Supreme Court Justices, the process certainly impacts the American people. To overturn Roe v. Wade would be a significant step backwards, and it would not accomplish the conservative goal of putting an end to abortions. Women would not stop having abortions, they would simply have illegal abortions, but conservatives don’t care. While their message is that they want to save lives, they disregard the millions of children in foster care, the women who will die from dangerous abortions, and so many other lives in the process. This disregard shows that their agenda is not truly about life at all, it is about controlling women’s bodies. If Barrett will not stand up against the control of women’s bodies by the government, what will she stand up for?

One thing Barrett certainly advocates is marriage between a man and a woman, and a man and a woman only. It is fair to assume that given the chance, she would undermine LGBTQ rights, and expand religious freedom to discriminate against LGBTQ people. In our legal system, it is perfectly fine to believe in one’s religion that marriage is between a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman, or whatever else your religious text may say. However, personal beliefs are just that, personal. It is fundamental to our Constitution that religion and state remain separate, and as an originalist interpreter of the Constitution, Barrett should be more than familiar with the concept. However, despite her familiarity, the rulings she has made as an appellate judge and will make on the Supreme Court reflect her religion nonetheless. 

The United States is not an anti-religious country, but we are, or at least claim to be, a country without an official religion. While it is okay for Supreme Court justices to have religious beliefs, it is unconstitutional for their religious views to leak into our legislature. Americans can expect to see a wave of religiously-driven decisions made by the Supreme Court in the future. Gay marriage, the right to choose, and many other landmark decisions could be impacted or even overturned under this new vehemently conservative Supreme Court. While Amy Coney Barrett might be a nice woman and an abundantly qualified candidate, she will leave a lasting impact on America, and it won’t be a good one.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Legacy That Will Live On

By: Kira Oviedo, Staff Writer

“My mother had two lessons that she repeated over and over ‘be a lady’ and ‘be independent.’ Be a lady meant don’t allow yourself to be overcome by useless emotions like anger, and by independent she meant ‘it would be fine if you met prince charming and lived happily ever after, but… be able to fend for yourself,’” said Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Nearly a month ago the Associate Justice for the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, unfortunately passed due to a decline in health. Although all of her supporters were in mourning, there was a collective response that all of her work needed to be spread. I find myself among these supporters and feel as though it is important to display a glimpse of how her drive pushed society into an era of women's rights.

Since her graduation from Columbia Law School in 1959, the Notorious RBG (as fans would call her), spent the entirety of her legal career pushing in advocation of women empowerment. After being nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton in 1993 and sworn in soon after, Ginsburg took the position seriously, making her opinions clearly known to fellow Justices. A key case Ginsburg argued for as a Justice was United States v. Virginia. In this, RBG swayed the Justices to form the majority opinion in allowing women to attend a primarily men-only military institute. She delivered the opinion on the side of the plaintiff, stating that women who were qualified could not be denied entry to the Virginia Military Institute.

Growing up in the 50s, Ginsburg understood that women were seen as less than that of a man, shown by her being one of nine women in a class of 500 students at her first year of law school. She made it a point to tell all who identify as female that she expects big action, starting with how she wants the Supreme Court to look like in the future.

“In my life, I expect to see two, three, four, perhaps even more women on the high court bench. Women not shaped from the same mold, but of different complexions,” said Ginsburg.

I think RBG has set an emphasis on what it means to truly stand up for justice. The idea does not simply mean that one should focus on issues that pertain to themselves. Justice is not subject to tunnel vision, but rather a means to aid those who feel minimized by society, and others who are afraid to have their voice heard.

What happens now? With a seat now open on the Supreme Court, thoughts and opinions have been circulating about if President Trump should or can nominate a new Justice so close to the election. Concerns of many have been brought to light that if someone is nominated, it is unlikely that the person would hold women to the same regard as Ginsburg did.

Nonetheless, with a pandemic ongoing and an election looming, one thing she enforced is for certain. That is, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, or what you believe in, you must speak up and act in the aid of others.

OP-ED: Don’t Sweat About Gorsuch

(Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

            After just over a year without a full bench, the Supreme Court may soon be restored to its full panel of nine justices.  Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee began confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, who was nominated by President Trump in January to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. 

            Gorsuch, a conservative and Colorado native, has garnered frequent praise from legal experts on both sides for his impartiality and incisive commentary.  He is also frequently hailed as one of the leading proponents of originalism, an approach to interpreting constitutional language that emphasizes the original meaning and intent behind a given legal provision.  This was the preferred method of the Justice Scalia, who served as a mentor to Judge Gorsuch following his confirmation to the Tenth Circuit in 2006, and the two were of like mind on many judicial issues, especially on issues of gun control and freedom of religious expression.

            Clearly, Judge Gorsuch would be a natural choice for any Republican president and an easy confirmation for a GOP-led Senate.  However, the potential appointment is not without its controversies.  Following the death of Justice Scalia last February, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) announced that Senate Republicans would not even consider Judge Merrick Garland, then-President Obama’s pick for the job.  The move drew harsh criticism from both liberals and moderates, who viewed it as a partisan power grab and dangerous affront to tradition.

            Then there is the question of Gorsuch’s judicial record, which has many progressive Democrats worried.  For instance, while the appellate jurist has not yet had a chance to rule on abortion rights, several activists have pointed to his book – “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he argues against the practice of assisted suicide on moral and legal grounds – as proof of strong pro-life convictions.  Progressives and liberals may also find Gorsuch’s history on capital punishment troubling: according to a profile published on SCOTUSblog, he has rarely voted in favor of death row inmates seeking judicial relief. 

            However, some of this worry may be premature.  Gorsuch’s originalist proclivities have led him to take positions which could prove amicable to liberal causes.  When it comes to interpreting criminal statute, the potential justice seems to have adopted a similar approach to his late mentor, who frequently voted alongside his more liberal colleagues in favor of more constrained readings of criminal laws.  Gorsuch has also been highly critical of laws restricting public religious expression and of executive overreach.  Somewhat counter-intuitively, if he is confirmed, these principles may sometimes put Gorsuch at odds with President Trump’s harsh stances on crime and Islam.

            In the end, however, Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation would do little to shift the balance of the court from where it was a year ago.  Due to its exceptionally balanced composition of four liberals, four conservatives, and one centrist, the Roberts Court has been decidedly measured in its rulings, having both expanded civil rights for minorities and putting checks on legislative and executive overreach.  Replacing Justice Scalia with another conservative originalist will, for the most part, keep things as they are.  But, Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy are all approaching the age where retirement or deaths are increasingly probable.  If one of them vacates their seat while the GOP retains control of the Senate and White House, the healthy balance of the Roberts Court could be in jeopardy.

Ford Mulligan Staff Reporter