Frontal view of the U.S supreme court building

Amy Coney Barret – President Trump to appoint a new justice of the Supreme Court


With Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s recent passing, the Supreme court has suddenly risen to the top issue. You have probably seen all the political pundits and PR agencies scrambling to put words on paper.

Introduction

When I wrote, the supreme court is suddenly an issue, that wasn’t to say the highest court in the land was ever a non-issue, but it is in a post-pandemic world. The courts are more subdued and inconsistent as ever. So how does Trump’s supreme court pick matter? More importantly, how does it have any immediate impact? Follow along, and hopefully, we can answer those questions.

Trump’s Supreme court pick

President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Judge. Amy Barrett, a 48-year-old American lawyer, and jurist served as a Judge of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit before her nomination.

Amy Coney Barrett revealed that President Trump offered her the nomination. She said that she was invited to the White House by President to discuss the matter. On Monday, September 21, she met Vice president Mike Pence at the White House, where President Trump offered her the nomination that she accepted.

Amy has been nominated to fill the vacancy created after supreme court judge Ginsburg’s death on September 18, 2020, just 46 days before the election. Ginsburg was appointed by Bill Clinton on June 14, 1993, under section 2 of the Constitution that authorizes the president the judicial appointments.

President Trump selected Amy for Supreme Court Associate Justice on September 26, 2020; however, she has been on Trump’s list since 2016, or we can say that she’s been Trump’s favorite because of her legal writings and suggestions that opposed Roe v. Wade.

What does Amy Coney Barret stand for

She has been supporting the abolition of  Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision made by the U.S supreme court in 1973 that grants women freedom of abortion, defying the restrictions imposed, in this regard, by the state.


She opposed “abortion on demand.” saying that “we, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death.”

During Trump’s campaign in 2016, he frequently said he would appoint a justice who would overturn this decision. He also issued a list of judges that he would prefer to fill the Supreme Court vacancy during his government. These nominees included Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Britt Grant, Amul Thapar, and David Stras.

Previously, Trump said that he would shortlist the names for September 21 and declare the final name on 24 or 25 September. Finally, on September 26, Trump announced Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee in a White House Rose Garden ceremony.

How much does Trump’s supreme court pick matter?

Besides the fact that one justice can’t sway the whole court, no self-respecting supreme court judge is going to walk on with obvious bias. There’s no doubt that they take themselves more seriously than that.

Plus, the courts have typically been pretty balanced as far as public policy goes. So no matter who Trump picks to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the court will still retain some semblance of balance.

If there was a case that showed evidence of the Supreme Court being blatantly biased, we haven’t heard of it. More importantly, we want to listen to that argument.

A cautionary warning about the Supreme Court

It was a short time ago that conservatives were accusing a conservative Supreme Court judge of being a traitor. Case in point, Chief Justice Roberts is not as right-wing as people think.

Let’s take caution in terms of slapping a label on something. In the previous example, we showed a supreme court judge could be a hardcore conservative while also being a socialist sympathizer.

Conclusion

All in all, let’s not be held back by partisan disagreement. They hold us back in terms of positive change and in terms of solving problems. So ultimately, this story is destined to be a lesson in picking your battles. As neither side of the political spectrum can “stack” the courts. And that’s the real concern, isn’t it?