The Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court without a hitch this week. Her confirmation process was the smoothest of all of Donald Trump’s SCOTUS picks. The news, as expected, electrified conservatives and deflated Leftists [Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed To Supreme Court, Takes Constitutional Oath, by Barbara Sprunt, NPR, October 26, 2020].
I wrote earlier this month about why immigration patriots shouldn’t be too thrilled by Barrett, considering the large influence her adopted Haitian children have over her. She said at her confirmation that she wept over George Floyd due to this family influence. That casts doubt on whether she will be the strong conservative her supporters make her out to be.
But Leftist outlets make good, yet unintentional arguments for why she may be a great judge.
Slate warns Barrett will bring down “decades of anti-discrimination law.”
During her confirmation hearing, Judge Amy Coney Barrett was asked if she agreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia that the Voting Rights Act was a “racial entitlement.” Barrett, who has said, “His judicial philosophy is mine too,” declined to answer. If she indeed shares Scalia’s view of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court is likely to embrace an idea that would destroy much of anti-discrimination law: that race-conscious countermeasures against discrimination are themselves discriminatory.
[Amy Coney Barrett Could Bring Down Decades of Anti-Discrimination Law, by Chiraag Bains, Slate, October 26, 2020].
The concern is that the Supreme Court will strike down policies that favor non-whites over whites—a real travesty.
Two law professors sounded a similar alarm in the Washington Post. The law professors—University of Michigan’s Leah Litman [Tweet her] and Cardozo School of Law’s Kate Shaw [Email her]—are greatly concerned that a Supreme Court with Amy Coney Barrett will now rule in favor of policies that “discriminate” against immigrants. The Court is set to hear cases concerning the exclusion of illegal immigrants from the Census, border wall funding, and strict asylum rules. Litman and Shaw argue that Barrett’s addition means the court will likely rule in favor of tough immigration policies that avow their intent to serve the historic American nation [A 6-3 Supreme Court could allow the government to openly discriminate in its policies, by Leah Litman and Kate Shaw, Washington Post, October 21, 2020].
“For the past four years, the court has largely ruled out of bounds the anti-immigrant sentiment that underlies some of the Trump administration’s policies, and it has called out the administration when it appears to lie to conceal its true motives. That seems about to change. And it’s hard to say which would be worse: a court that accepts disingenuous arguments, or one that accepts overt defenses of discrimination,” they morosely conclude.
Those three cases will give Barrett a chance to prove herself. Will she side with the historic American nation, or will she be swayed by her adopted children’s tears? Liberals are confident she will do the former.
