President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant seat caused by the tragic passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September 2020. Judge Barrett should not be appointed by President Trump to be a new Supreme Court Justice. With everything I have read and researched about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, she does not give a clear stance on certain topics I find important, such as climate change and systemic racism. Also, her views on a woman’s right to choose what she can or cannot do with their body is contrary to my own beliefs. Amy Coney Barrett has actively attempted to restrict abortion laws and admitted to signing two advertisements opposing the Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal in the United Staes. If Judge Barrett is appointed, she, along with the other pro-life Judges of the Supreme Court, could impact a woman’s ability to gain access to medically safe abortion procedures through their rulings on laws or cases brought before them. Furthermore, with her appointment, the Supreme Court will also be unbalanced with more conservative leaning judges leading to less diversity in views. There needs to be more moderate to liberal leaning judges who offer other points of view so laws will be interpreted in a more balanced way, especially when it comes to situations where the Supreme Court needs to vote on key decisions affecting all Americans.
Should Amy Coney Barrett be appointed to be a new Supreme Court Justice?
How can our Supreme Court Justice appointment process ensure there is a diversity of perspectives to avoid potentially unbalanced rulings that don’t represent the majority of Americans?
I don't believe Barrett should be appointed as a new Supreme Court Justice.
ReplyDeleteThere are several issues I strongly disagree with her in which you have mentioned (particularly notable for me was how she called climate change "contentious" and "controversial" and the possibility of overturning previous precedents). The Supreme Court becoming overwhelming conservative will have impacts for generations and is troubling for people who are not conservative.
However, to order to argue that she should not be appointed, just by saying she has conservative beliefs, is not the most compelling case. Better points, to me are that when asked to name the five freedoms protected by the first amendment (a softball question), she said "Speech, religion, press, assembly, speech, press, religion, assembly. I don’t know. What am I missing?" -missing the right to petition, which is concerning to say the least. The other issue to me is when Merrick Garland was nominated in 2016 on the argument that justices should not be nominated during election years. In doing so, Republicans set a precedent, saying things like "If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.' And you could use my words against me, and you'd be absolutely right." This hypocrisy is to me, the strongest reason against appointment.
Hi Tristan! Thank you so much for the feedback. While constructing my first draft of the blog, I did mention the Merrick Garland appointment in 2016, but ultimately cut it out because it would have been too long and it doesn't really support my claim. But I do think that it brings up another point, which is that the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice should wait until after the election. While the situation with Garland and Obama was slightly different, Obama was still told to wait until the next president was elected. It's hypocritical for the Senate to push for Trump to appoint the next justice because of political views. So not only will Amy Coney Barrett make the Supreme COurt unbalanced, the amount of hypocrisy surrounding this situation is appalling.
DeleteAmy Coney Barrett should not be appointed as the new Supreme Court justice. It’s extremely troubling how she, along with the republican majority, would decide many key issues regarding healthcare, reproductive rights, racial discrimination, and the LGBTQ community. She is a disgrace of a replacement for RBG. She is not a feminist and would set women’s rights back in time. What got her to the position she is in today is her history of voting AGAINST the rights of Americans. What really concerns me is her stance on Roe v. Wade. Her extremely conservative view would endanger the lives of women around the country by preventing safe and legal access to abortions. Packing the court is not a good idea to create a representative Supreme Court. One option could be nominating a Supreme Court republican who sometimes takes a more liberal stance, but Barrett is a far right conservative and will only worsen the lives of Americans.
ReplyDeleteHi! I completely agree with you Abbie! She should not be appointed for Supreme Court because she will make the SUpreme Court completely unbalanced in terms of members with more conservative views compared to members with more progressive views. Also, I agree that she stance on the Roe v. Wade is troubling, especially since it will affect a woman's right to choose what she can do with her body. It's very dangerous and restrictive. In regards to the alternative you mentioned, I do agree that they should appoint someone with less conservative views than Amy Coney Barrett has. The Supreme Court makes decisions that affect the lives of ALL americans which means they need to have different views to come together to make the best ruling they can for the good of the people. They also interpret things, like the Constitution, differently, so having members with different ways of thinking will allow the to more neutral ruling, that hopefully people who think either way can agree with.
DeleteI am personally very against appointing Amy Coney Barrett as the new Supreme Court Justice. It seems that I disagree with much of what she advocates for. I am specifically concerned about how her strong religious faith and pro-life values will affect women's reproductive rights across the nation. Trump himself stated that he would automatically choose to have a pro-life justice that is committed to the idea of possibly overturning Roe v. Wade, which makes me scared for the future of women who require access to safe abortion services. I believe that women should have the choice to do what they want with their bodies, especially when many of these pregnancies occur as a result of non-consensual situations. I would also like to add that a possible ban on abortion doesn’t necessarily mean that they will stop-- they will just become more unsafe. In general, seeing that she maintains such strong, conservative values makes me fear how she will rule on issues involving the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, women, and people of color.
ReplyDeleteSimply listening to her refusals to answer simple, straightforward questions during her hearing was painful to watch. It seems as though she intentionally tried to use every loophole possible to avoid answering numerous questions. She arrived with no notes, and as Tristan stated, she was unable to list the five freedoms that are protected under the First Amendment. I find it scary that we have so little insight in regards to her stance on many prominent and pressing topics. I hate to be negative about the situation, but I think that it is a shame that all of the progress that different communities have made could potentially be erased. Considering the fact that she would be filling the seat of RBG, a trailblazer for gender equality, it just seems like this choice would be a complete step in the opposite direction.
While I, like many others, am very against appointing Barrett as the new Supreme Court Justice, I also recognize that like Tristan mentioned, I think the biggest problem here is Congress' hypocrisy on the issue of appointing a new justice so close to the election, as well as Barrett's lack of ability to list the 5 clauses of the first amendment. Obviously, a large group of people, especially in the liberal bay area, oppose her appointment and feel that she does not reflect what the majority of the country wants in our Supreme Court. I think that the Supreme Court should be reflection of the country's beliefs, which means that the court would be roughly a 50/50 split of more conservative justices and more liberal justices. However, if the country is leaning more one way, like arguably the country is more republican leaning currently because we elected a Republican president (or atleast, the majority did), then it would unfortunately make sense that the Supreme Court would also be more right-leaning, which is what Barrett's appointment would lead to. However, one could also argue that so close to an election, they should hold off because we (the country) could now show that we are more left-leaning by electing a democrat into office, which would mean that they should instead appoint a more left-leaning justice into the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that Amy Coney Barret shouldn’t be appointed as the new Supreme Court Justice. It would make the supreme court biased if she is nominated. Every case would already be determined even before the Supreme Court makes a decision. This is why we must get someone else who is more moderate or liberal to even out the Supreme Court and not make it so predictable. I think we should wait till after the election occurs to nominate a Supreme Court justice. Even republicans back in 2016 said the same thing about nominating a Supreme Court Justice. In this way, the people will determine who the next Supreme Court will favor. Also I disagree with many of Coney’s views especially towards climate change and systemic racism. This is part of the reason why I don’t want Barret to become the next Supreme Court Justice.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Amy Coney Barrett should be appointed as Supreme Court Justice.I think it is important to have women in high ranking, high power positions in government, however she has a clear bias which would be unfair in rulings. I believe that women may have their right of choice restricted due to her personal religious and moral beliefs having an influence on her rulings. She seems to have opinions that match someone very unexposed to the struggles of many Americans, which makes me feel like she would be unfit as a Supreme Court Justice.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to play devil's advocate because it's important to consider both sides. While I am in favor of Barrett not being appointed, ultimately Republicans do legally have the power to do so. Technically, there is no law prohibiting an appointment this close to an election. In addition, on the topic of Roe v. Wade, many Republicans who support her would argue that abortion is not a natural right, while Democrats typically argue that it is. Ultimately, the Constitution is just a document that can be interpreted in multiple ways, and there is no way of knowing for sure exactly what the Founding Fathers intended with its creation. Until and unless there is a constitutional amendment passed that specifically either legalizes or illegalizes abortion, the issue will always be up for debate with no real right answer.
ReplyDeleteDifferences in opinion are no reason to prevent a Supreme Court Justice nomination, as long as the candidate is not clearly in favor of unconstitutional practices (as is the case here-remember, abortion is never specifically defined as a right, so it is up for debate).
Finally, Barrett's demeanor during the hearings and choice to stay vague about many topics is a common trend that many potential justices employ, in order to avoid alienating anyone or supporting one side over the other. It isn't new, and it isn't a serious issue.
This post is closed; no new comments will be graded.
ReplyDelete