Senate should confirm Amy Coney Barrett

The U.S. Supreme Court is not a representative branch of government, but let’s face it: the U.S. Supreme Court could use an excellent, articulate, female justice committed to the philosophy of judicial restraint.  For many years, the so-called “conservative” bloc on the court has consisted of five men, while the “liberal” bloc has consisted of three women and one man. The gender of our justices should not matter, but the optics of that division are not great.

In nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Donald J. Trump has picked one of the most qualified legal minds in America, irrespective of her gender. She unquestionably deserves to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Desperate attacks on her family and faith, as well as critiques of the nomination and confirmation process, are mere distractions that should be dismissed.

Barrett’s record and life story are among the most remarkable of anyone nominated to the court. Even those who disagree with her judicial philosophy consider her among the most esteemed legal scholars in the nation. The liberal author and legal scholar Noah Feldman, who served as a Supreme Court law clerk with Barrett more than 20 years ago, wrote in the wake of Barrett’s nomination that she “stood out” among the clerks, writing, “I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.”

There can be little doubt to Barrett’s qualifications or character. A handful of liberal political operatives and news media types have attempted to discredit her faith and family, even going so far as to attack her for adopting two children from Haiti, but even most liberal senators reluctantly acknowledge her qualifications. Fellow law clerks, students at Notre Dame Law School (where she has served as a professor), colleagues, and friends universally testify to her genuineness, compassion, and intellect.

Lacking a basis upon which to attack Barrett’s qualifications or character, most opponents of her nomination attack the process. Get beyond the legitimate critiques of hypocrisy by both parties, and these attacks lack any basis upon which to reject Barrett’s nomination.

Since the Supreme Court’s establishment in 1790 in the wake of the U.S. Constitution, there have been 113 justices.  Every time a vacancy occurred, the President fulfilled his Constitutional obligation and nominated a replacement. In nominating Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump similarly fulfilled his obligation.

Likewise, each nomination to the court by a President has been subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Democrats opposed to Barrett’s confirmation denounce Senate leaders for moving forward with the confirmation of Barrett after refusing to take up President Barack Obama’s election year nomination of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016. Hypocrisy, they say.

And they have a point. Measured by their statements in 2016, both parties are hypocritical. Merrick Garland deserved better in 2016. Republican senators should have been up-front with Garland and the American people about their opposition to his confirmation. A majority of the Senate in 2016, duly elected, opposed Garland’s judicial philosophy and chose not to take up his nomination. In 2014, the American people voted in a Republican majority to the Senate, largely to place a check and balance on Obama. That Senate chose not to move forward with Garland’s confirmation.

In 2016 and 2018, presidential and Senate elections turned significantly upon Supreme Court nominations, in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and the treatment of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. The current Senate has therefore chosen to take up the nomination of Barrett. Hypocritical? Perhaps. Outside Constitutional norms and traditions?  Hardly.

The political process is messy. In a more civil era, the Senate treated the court and nominations thereto with deference and dignity. As late as the 1990s, justices were approved by unanimous or near-unanimous votes. Not so in 2020.

Here’s the bottom line. Barrett is an extremely qualified nominee who loves her country and the Constitution, and, based on her experience and writings as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, carries the potential to be among the most influential justices on the Supreme Court. To subjugate her extraordinary qualifications to an increasingly dysfunctional Senate process would be a travesty of justice. The Senate should confirm Amy Coney Barrett.

Stephanie Thompson, President of Alexander Creek Incorporated, has served 15 years on the board of Alaska Federation of Natives.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.