On the second morning of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Judge Amy Coney Barrett surprised the nation with a simple gesture. Typically, in a congressional hearing, individuals giving testimony will bring catalogs of notes, references, and relevant information they can refer to when questioned. There’s little that is off-limits in a judicial nomination hearing, so individuals who appear before the committee often come equipped with talking points and sound bites to counter particularly difficult questioning.
However, when Sen. John Cornyn of Texas asked Judge Barrett what she had been referring to in her testimony, Judge Barrett responded with an eye-opening move. She held up a blank notepad. She came equipped only with her wit and professionalism. But no amount of notes could have added to her esteemed qualifications.
With her unimpeachable background, she didn’t need talking points because there were no accusations that could throw her off. With her experience as a judge and professor in the law, she was prepared to answer any question on precedent or established law.
What can anyone say to challenge Barrett’s qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court? She exemplifies the American dream. She grew up in New Orleans and attended Rhodes College in Memphis. She earned a scholarship to attend law school at Notre Dame, where she finished first in her class and served as the executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. After graduation, she clerked at the Supreme Court and taught at Notre Dame, the University of Virginia, and George Washington University law schools.
In 2017, she was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. During her confirmation hearing, she was challenged for her deeply held religious beliefs. Judge Barrett grew up in a Catholic home, attended an all-girls Catholic high school, and actively lives out her faith. Judge Barrett’s strong Christian beliefs were one of the main points of opposition to her nomination and were highlighted when California Sen. Diane Feinstein proclaimed, “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” Despite Feinstein’s attacks, she received bipartisan confirmation.
Three years later, following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump chose her to fill the vacancy. As she was in 2017, she is still qualified. She has received support from a wide range of legal experts and has displayed the impartiality that is necessary in a Supreme Court Justice.
That has not stopped Democrats from attacking her with bizarre questions about her background, legal acumen, and personal life. While some Democratic senators questioned her impartiality as a judge and her ability to set aside political pressure to rule on issues before the court, the attacks hold little weight considering that the American Bar Association has given her its highest rating of “well qualified,” based on her integrity, professional competency, and judicial temperament.
Even more impressive, Barrett stood steadfast against these attacks on her ability to be fair and impartial. She acknowledged that she agrees with Justice Scalia that “a judge must apply the law as written, not as judges wishes it were.” In an exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Judge Barrett said, “no one has elicited from me any commitment in a case,” and later added, “I’m 100% committed to judicial independence from political pressure.”
Congressional Democrats fear Barrett and therefore attempt to paint her as malicious. That’s because, for decades, liberals have used the federal courts to advance their progressive agenda without accountability. Democrats have repeatedly shown that if they cannot pass legislation through Congress, they will use the Supreme Court to make laws for them. What scares them the most is that, with the confirmation of Judge Barrett, they will no longer be able to use the courts to establish law that is too unpopular with the public to pass Congress.
Democrats fear Barrett and other judges like her for their originalist and textualist approach to the law — their belief that the legislating should be left to the legislative branch and that justices should not simply impose their personal beliefs over the Constitution. If confirmed, Barrett would represent a significant shift away from activist justices who legislate from the bench. She would help restore the accountability in government that the Founding Fathers intended.
Senate Democrats will do everything they can to prevent her confirmation, not because she is unqualified to serve, but because her accession to the high court would force them to control Congress instead of just the judicial branch. What they fear most is the idea that they would have to answer to the voters consistently for the laws they advocate.
In truth, everyone should be thrilled with Barrett’s nomination, not only for her outstanding credentials but also for what her confirmation would mean for our nation. It is my hope that her confirmation represents a return of our republic to a healthier style of governance, one where every law passed is done so by elected officials who are held accountable by the people who elected them.
Michael Guest represents Mississippi’s 3rd Congressional District.
