Amy Coney Barrett Could Be A Superb Supreme Court Justice. She’s Choosing Not To Be:
What Barrett fails to realize is that her failure to consistently abide by originalist doctrine is placing Americans’ constitutional rights at risk.
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett has become a sort of enigma among avid Supreme Court observers.
After filling the vacancy left by deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in late 2020, many conservatives were hopeful that the former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia would offer a much-needed dose of originalism to the high court’s majority of Republican appointees. With Barrett joining Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and (on his good days) Neil Gorsuch, the prospects for decisions abiding by the Constitution as written would be far more likely, or so the conventional thinking went.
To her credit, Barrett has shown the potential do just that. During her time as a justice, the former Notre Dame law professor has been instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade and Chevron deference, upholding certain religious liberty protections, and several other high-profile matters that have come before the high court in recent years.
However, what continues to stump constitutionalists and Barrett hopefuls alike is the associate justice’s abject failure to consistently apply originalist doctrine in her rulings.
The latest example of this dynamic came on Wednesday, when Barrett signed on to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bondi v. Vanderstok. In its 7-2 ruling, the high court’s majority upheld restrictions put forward by the Biden ATF on so-called “ghost guns” that, according to Fox News, Second Amendment advocacy groups have characterized as “unconstitutional and abusive.”
Authored by Gorsuch, the majority claimed that the 1968 Gun Control Act “embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those” discussed in the case. “Because the court of appeals held otherwise,” Gorsuch wrote, “its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented in the case, with the latter blasting the majority for “bless[ing] the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute.”
Much to conservatives’ disappointment, this is hardly the only case in which Barrett has sided with the court’s Democrat and moderate Republican appointees in abandoning originalist doctrine.
Barrett notably authored the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s 2024 Murthy v. Missouri case, in which she, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the court’s leftists arbitrarily ruled that doctors targeted by the Biden-Big Tech censorship-industrial complex and plaintiff states lacked standing to bring the suit. Astonishingly, Barrett wrote that plaintiffs “have not shown that they are likely to face a risk of future censorship traceable” to the Biden administration.
The opinion is so egregiously bad that it was cited by a Democrat senator during a Tuesday Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing to falsely claim the federal government has not engaged in widespread efforts to censor conservatives. --->READ MORE HERE
Amy Coney Barrett Sides With Liberal Justice During Supreme Court Hearing:
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to side with her liberal colleagues while hearing arguments in a case that will determine the future of no-cost preventive care under the Affordable Care Act.
Why It Matters
The case, Kennedy V. Braidwood challenges the legal authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF), created by the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. The task force recommends services insurers must cover at no-cost measures including cancer screenings and HIV prevention drugs like PrEP. But the conservative Christian employers in Texas who brought the case, argue that the 16 members of the task force, who are appointed by the HHS secretary, are unconstitutionally appointed.
The case will be consequential for the future of American health care. If the justices uphold a New Orleans-based fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2024, treatments that are now cost-free may become subject to payments.
Coney Barrett, who was nominated by Trump in 2020, has emerged as a centrist judge in Supreme Court cases and has been criticized by Trump supporters for voting against her conservative colleagues in the past.
What To Know
The Court's three liberal members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson have all appeared to side with the task force while conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch appeared sympathetic to the challengers, with Thomas suggesting Congress had never designated authority to run the task force.
Conservative lawyer Jonathan Miller, who is representing the plaintiffs, argued that PSTF members are meant to be independent from political pressure. He said they could not simultaneously retain independence while being subject to supervision by the health secretary.
But Coney Barrett said Mitchell's interpretation of the word "independent" was "maximalist" and pointed to the doctrine of "constitutional avoidance" which argues that if a statute is open to interpretation, the Court should pick an interpretation that raises the least constitutional problems—i.e. the Court should not interpret the word "independent" in a way that renders the PSTF unconstitutional.--->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK
here, GETTR
here, and TWITTER
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment