Judge Amey Coney Barrett, whom President Donald Trump plans to nominate to the Supreme Court on Saturday, enjoys the backing of the conservative movement, and is one of the favorites of evangelicals and anti-abortion activists to fill the position that became vacant after the death of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg a week ago.
Barrett, 48, is a federal appeals court judge and has been conservative on issues such as abortion and the government’s role in health. If confirmed, she would be the youngest magistrate in the Supreme Court, where the charges are vital. His presence would consolidate a strong conservative six-vote majority in front of three progressive magistrates.
Prior to joining the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett briefly worked as a lawyer and then taught for 15 years at Notre Dame Law School, where she graduated from.
Trump nominated her to her current post three years ago; if appointed and confirmed by the Senate, she would be the most experienced magistrate in a court.
“It’s the perfect combination of a brilliant jurist and a woman who brings to court an argument that is potentially contrary to the opinions of the judges they currently exercise,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion organization, told The New York Times.
Barret favor abortion
The views of Barrett, a devout Catholic member of several anti-abortion groups, and her legal philosophy regarding the right of women to decide on her body, have attracted a lot of attention and have the potential to lead the country to a highly polarized national debate.
In 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision in roe vs. Wade’s case legalized abortion in the country. Since then, there have been many challenges to sentencing in court, but it has prevailed, setting an important precedent.
During her confirmation hearing in 2017, Barrett said she will not challenge the decision from an appeals court: “I would have no interest as a judge of an appeals court in challenging that precedent. It would be binding.”
However, as a law professor, Barrett wrote in 2013 in Texas Law Review an article in which she agreed that a precedent could not be above the interpretation of the Constitution.
“The duty of a [Supreme Court] judge is to the Constitution and is therefore more legitimate to apply it according to his better understanding than a precedent that clearly believes is in conflict with it,” Barrett wrote.
As an appeals judge Barrett was in favor of restricting women’s access to legal abortion.
During a lecture at Jacksonville University in 2016, reporting the New York Times, Judge Barrett said Roe v. Wade established the right to abortion for women and that this was unlikely to change, although it could change the way states restrict access to that right.
“I think the question of whether people can have very long-term abortions, you know, how many restrictions can be put on clinics, I think that would change,” he said.
In 2018, she defended a court decision in Indiana that prohibited abortions based solely on sex or disability in a fetus. An appeals court ruled that this law was in conflict with the Precedent of the Supreme Court.
Last year, Barrett followed the Supreme Court’s precedent and upholded a law in Chicago that protects women entering abortion clinics from unwanted interactions with protesters and counselors.
With a possible Barrett nomination, evangelical voters are confident they will have a better chance of overturning the Roe vs Wade case and thus ending legal abortion in the country.
Barrett voted to maintain the Trump Administration’s public charging rule, which allows applicants who are deemed to be dependent on public benefits, such as food stamps or housing aid, to be denied permanent residency.
The Seventh Circuit blocked the Administration’s ability to enforce its interpretation of the public cargo rule in Illinois. Barrett wrote that the Definition of the Department of Homeland Security is not “unreasonable,” especially considering that “the text of the current statute was amended in 1996 to increase the determination of the public burden.”
Also in the Seventh Circuit, Barrett argued that the Second Amendment does not necessarily prohibit those convicted of serious crimes from possessing a weapon. She also declared a Wisconsin law prohibiting any person convicted of a felony from having guns, even if she has not been convicted of a violent crime, as unconstitutional.
“Legislative bodies have the power to ban dangerous people from possessing weapons. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous,” Barrett wrote.