Amy Coney Barrett: Conformer to Orignalism or Distorter of Law?

The appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court has reignited debates around her judicial philosophy, particularly her commitment to originalism and textualism. Critics and supporters alike argue that her approach to constitutional interpretation either upholds the Constitution as written or fundamentally distorts its principles.

Background and Expertise

Amy Coney Barrett is a renowned constitutional scholar with extensive expertise in statutory interpretation. Her scholarly work has been closely scrutinized, especially by those on the Christian right and social conservatives.

In 2006, at a Notre Dame Law School graduation ceremony, she emphasized her alignment with textualism and originalism, specifically the original-public-meaning approach. Barrett's clerkship with Justice Antonin Scalia and her admiration for his adherence to the text of statutes further cement her commitment to this judicial philosophy. Notably, Barrett has also criticized legal process theory, indicating a strong preference for a more textual and historical approach to jurisprudence.

Stare Decisis and Precedent

Barrett's stance on stare decisis (the doctrine of precedent) is a subject of significant debate. In a 2013 article in Texas Law Review, she identified seven cases as superprecedents: Brown v. Board of Education and Mapp v. Ohio, which have been upheld due to their significant societal impact and constitutional embedding. However, Roe v. Wade (1973) was notably excluded, with Barrett citing its lack of widespread acceptance as evidence that courts should not consider it as a superprecedent.

Affordable Care Act and Abortion

Barrett's opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is well-documented. In 2012, she signed a letter critical of the allowance for religious organizations to bypass providing birth control coverage. Furthermore, she expressed criticism of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s opinion in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (2012), which upheld the ACA's individual mandate.

On the issue of abortion, Barrett's personal stance is unambiguous; she personally opposes abortion. This is evident from her 2006 involvement with a St. Joseph County Right to Life advertisement that called for opposition to abortion. In 2013, reflecting on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, she described the decision as backlash ("Roe Rage"), a view that has gained support in the context of federal and state political dynamics.

The implications of Barrett's appointment are profound, particularly regarding the future direction of the Supreme Court. Her advocacy for legal principles rooted in the original public meaning of the Constitution contrasts sharply with the evolving social and legal landscape of contemporary America. The merits of her judicial philosophy remain a topic of intense discussion.

Conclusion

While Amy Coney Barrett's commitment to originalism and textualism is clear, the broader implications of her appointment to the Supreme Court are still being evaluated. Critics argue that her focus on specific precedents aligns with a narrower, more rigid interpretation of the Constitution, whereas supporters see her as a defender of the law as written. The ongoing debate will likely shape the future of constitutional interpretation and legal precedents for years to come.

It is crucial for the public to remain informed and actively engaged, especially as the judiciary continues to play a pivotal role in upholding and shaping the legal landscape.

References