During this week’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing to consider her nomination to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett told the committee, “I would hope that no one would consider me to be nominated for anything if I didn’t have values… I have principles. I wouldn’t be fit for office if I didn’t.” Her principles and values, including her commitment to originalism and the rule of law, were on display throughout the hearing.
During the hearing, Judge Barrett held to what is called the “Ginsburg Rule,” following the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s example of refusing to offer an opinion on past rulings or comment on matters that could come before the Court. This meant that, no matter how many times she was asked, she did not commit herself to a particular position on any case because the Court ought to play a judicial role, rather than a legislative role. “Judges don’t have campaign promises,” she reminded the committee.
While she did not offer her opinion on any of the Court’s past rulings, she did clarify in response to a question from Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar that Roe v. Wade is not a “super-precedent” which Judge Barrett defined as “cases that no justice would overrule.” For a case to be super-precedent it must be so established that it is accepted as settled law and receives no challenges, which means that Roe certainly is not super-precedent. Rather, it was an example of sweeping judicial overreach that robbed an entire group of people of their basic right to life. It is encouraging to see a Supreme Court nominee who recognizes that this ruling is not unquestionable settled law.
Barrett’s pro-life views received a great deal of scrutiny from Democratic members of the committee, including comments from Senator Dianne Feinstein denigrating Judge Barrett’s pro-life and religious views when she did not realize her mic was on and her remarks could be heard.
This week’s hearings also saw an emphasis on the importance of religious freedom, with multiple senators reiterating that the U.S. does not and should not have a religious test for public office. “You don’t need the government’s permission to have religious liberty,” said Senator Ben Sasse. “Religious liberty is the default assumption of our entire system, and because religious liberty is the fundamental 101 rule in American life, we don’t have religious tests.”
The last time Judge Barrett appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein told her, “The dogma lives loudly in you, and that’s of concern.” Another member of the committee, Senator Kamala Harris, recently suggested that she thinks Judge Barrett’s beliefs make her biased, and two years ago questioned if a judge nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court was fit for the bench since he is a practicing Catholic. From the time that President Trump announced Judge Barrett’s nomination, media outlet have hysterically compared her beliefs to Margaret Atwood’s dystopic Handmaid’s Tale and criticized her for living in accordance with her Catholic beliefs.
Judge Barrett’s family has also come under attack, from crass comments about the number of children she and her husband have, to accusations that they are racist “colonists” because two of their children are adopted from Haiti. One senator acknowledged the cruelty of these attacks and offered Judge Barrett a chance to respond. “They are my children who we love and who we brought home and made part of our family, and accusations like that are cruel,” she said.
Throughout the grueling hours of questioning, Judge Barrett remained steadfast in her commitment to originalism and rejection of judicial activism, holding to her assertion that a judge may not simply walk in like a royal queen and impose her will on the world. Judge Barrett is absolutely correct. Judges should be committed to the rule of law, rather than judicial activism. Her understanding of this fact makes her an excellent choice for the highest court in the land.
