Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett has developed into a sort of a mirage among ardent Supreme Court watchers.
Many liberals were anticipating that the former justice of righteousness Antonin Scalia would give the majority of Republican nominees a much-needed dosage of originalism after filling the vacant left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The chances of decisions abiding by the Constitution as it was written would be much higher with Barrett joining Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and ( on his good days ) Neil Gorsuch, or at least that’s what the conventional wisdom predicted.
Barrett has demonstrated the ability to do that, to her funds. The former Notre Dame law teacher has played a key role in upholding some of the high court’s new high court cases, including those involving Roe v. Wade and Chevron respect.
But, what continues to annoy centrists and Barrett aspirants is the associate court’s blatant disregard for originalist principles in her decisions.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bondi v. Vanderstok was the most recent instance of this powerful on Wednesday, when Barrett accepted it. The majority of the high court’s lot supported restrictions put forth by the Biden ATF on so-called “ghost cannons,” which the majority of its 7-2 rulings were deemed “unconstitutional and abusive” by Fox News.
The majority, according to Gorsuch, claimed that the 1968 Gun Control Act “embraces, and thus permits ATF to control, some weapon parts packages and empty frames or receivers, including those” discussed in the case. Gorsuch wrote, “its wisdom is reversed, and the situation is remanded for further trials consistent with this mind,” “because the court of appeals held otherwise.”
Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas objected in the case, criticizing the lot for “blessing ] the Government’s excess based on a number of issues regarding both the standard of assessment and the view of the statute.
This isn’t the only instance in which Barrett has supported the judge’s Democrat and moderate Republican officials by rejecting originalist theory, much to the dismay of conservatives.
Barrett somewhat led the majority of the 2024 Murthy v. Missouri event on the Supreme Court, in which she, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the prosecutor’s liberals arbitrarily decided that doctors who were targeted by the Biden-Big Tech censorship-industrial advanced and plaintiff claims lacked standing to file the lawsuit. Amazingly, Barrett claimed that claimants “have not demonstrated that they are likely to encounter a danger of upcoming repression visible” to the Biden administration.
A Democrat lawmaker cited the opinion in a false allegation that the government hasn’t made common efforts to censor conservatives during a Tuesday Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing because it is so egregiously poor.
[RELATED: Mollie Hemingway Delivers Masterclass Explainer On The” Government-Funded” War On Free Speech]
Barrett likewise discovered herself facing the bad end of Fischer v. United States, a case involving the Biden Justice Department’s use of a Sarbanes-Oxley Act provision to target and confine Jan. 6 protesters. The former Scalia clerk successfully attempted to rewrite the original meaning of the law by defending the Biden administration’s broad ( and inconsequential ) interpretation of it while playing the politician’s role.
Even radical leftist Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the court’s originalists ( Thomas and Alito ) and other GOP appointees in denouncing the administration’s efforts because of how outrageously improper the Biden DOJ’s use of the statute was.
However, discordant viewpoints are simply one aspect of Barrett’s jurisprudence’s issue. Additionally, the associate justice has a reputation for retaliating in cases involving immediate regional significance.
The most recent example of this occurred earlier this month, when Barrett joined Roberts and the prosecutor’s Democratic appointees in rejecting a request from the Trump presidency to overturn a district court order. The lower court judge ordered the State Department and the US Agency for International Development ( USAID ) to distribute roughly$ 2 billion in foreign grants to nongovernmental organizations after it was appointed by a Biden appointee.
Alito was” startled” by the court’s decision to allow the lower court to reshape the senior branch’s legal authority, which has only strengthened the Democrat-appointed district court judges ‘ desire to continue abusing the Trump presidency with excessive injunctions and transitory restraining orders.
Almost a year after Barrett’s appointment on the high court, a comparable example of Barrett’s refusal to take on significant cases was presented.
The associate righteousness in July 2021 refused to hear the case andnbsp of Barronelle Stutzman, a shop from Washington state, who had filed a lawsuit for refusing to offer decorative services for a queer couple’s “wedding” on religious grounds. In response to Barrett and SCOTUS’ inaction, which they allegedly donated to PFLAG, a dramatic LGBT advocacy group that supports the chemical and medical mutilation of minors and allowing men to engage in women’s sports, by refusing to join Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in agreeing to take the matter before the whole court ( at least four justices are required to do but ).
Barrett has made numerous disappointing decisions since taking the Supreme Court. And therein lies the issue.
The early warning signs do not bode well for Barrett’s SCOTUS career, though it’s true that it can take justices some time to get used to the pressures and pace of the high court. So far, it seems as though she prefers to adhere to Roberts and Kavanaugh’s squishy moderatism over Thomas and Alito’s originalist strategy.
However, Barrett is unaware that her inability to consistently uphold originalist principles and willingness to make punts on pressing issues entrusted to the court risk the country’s constitutional rights. The Supreme Court should protect citizens ‘ freedoms and stop lower court judges ‘ attempts to undermine their will as the legal system is being used by leftists to attack their political opponents like never before.
Amy Coney Barrett has the power to represent their rights and accurately interpret the founding document of their nation. She is, however, making her decision to not be.
The Federalist staff writer Shawn Fleetwood graduated from the University of Mary Washington. He previously worked for Convention of States Action as a state content writer, and his writing has appeared in numerous publications, including Conservative Review, RealClearPolitics, and RealClear Health. Follow him on Twitter at @ShawnFleetwood
