Political agendas shouldn’t define justice

Home Opinion Homepage - Opinion Political agendas shouldn’t define justice
Political agendas shouldn’t define justice
Students for Life promote Judge Amy Coney Barrett in front of the Supreme Court. | Flickr

This past week, the Senate Judiciary Committee debated whether to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Although this confirmation process has not focused on Barrett’s personal history as much as Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings in 2018 did, the Democratic Party has still attempted to taint the judicial process with politics.

Barrett’s qualifications for the Supreme Court, not her political opinions, should define the hearings. She has the experience needed to be a good justice on the Supreme Court. She has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for almost three years and has worked in the legal system for over two decades. Barrett has a record of being an excellent judge who does not subvert the law for her own intentions.  

Earlier last month, Barrett joined the majority position in Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker to uphold the Illinois governor’s emergency lockdown order. Gov. J.B. Pritzker established a 50-person limit on all gatherings in the state, including religious gatherings.  Members of the Republican party argued religious gatherings should receive an exemption under the Constitution, but Barrett voted against this position.

Although Barrett holds more conservative political opinions, she did not allow those opinions to influence her interpretation of the law.  She looked at what the Constitution said about religious liberty and applied the law to a group she may have personally supported.  

Barrett has expressed her desire to adhere to the law and not what she wants the law to mean. She firmly believes in interpreting the Constitution through the lens of the Founders’ intent instead of the lens of mob rule, as she made clear in this week’s hearing when she said, “Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda. I like guns. I hate guns. I like abortion. I hate abortion,’ and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world.”

But instead of focusing on how Barrett would perform as a justice on the Supreme Court, Democrats on the committee have launched an attack on Barrett’s personal stance on political issues and attempted to disqualify her based on her failure to align with their political agenda. Members of the committee brought up abortion, climate change, ObamaCare, and other issues in the hopes of trapping Barrett into making a political statement. Clearly, these committee members want a justice who will conform to the influence of partisan opinions. 

This goal became especially obvious when Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, criticized Barrett for her use of the phrase “sexual preference” because it threatened the LGBTQ community by implying orientation is a choice.  Up until last Tuesday, this term was not considered offensive or inappropriate. 

Shortly after Hirono attacked Barrett, the Washington Examiner reported the Merriam-Webster Dictionary changed its definition to say the term “is widely considered offensive.”  

Barrett apologized for her supposed transgression, but the message was clear: this committee would rather have a uniform, biased court than a just court.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, emphasized this desire for a biased court when she questioned Barrett’s nomination. The senator implied Barrett was nominated because she assisted George W. Bush’s legal team during the disputed 2000 presidential election. “I think the public has a right to know that now three of these justices have worked on the Republican side on a major, major issue related to a presidential election,” Klobuchar said. 

Bush v. Gore ruled that the Florida Supreme Court could not change the state’s voting law during or immediately after the election to recount ballots in 2000.

Klobuchar attempted to focus Barrett’s nomination on politics instead of merit. In doing so, she voiced the Democratic position that Barrett should not join the Supreme Court because of her political affiliation.  

In a time when our society holds everything to a “politically correct” standard, we need a Supreme Court justice who will protect the Constitution and our nation from the destructive winds of popular opinion. Our nation was created to protect our natural rights, and the American founders established the judicial branch to act as the impartial defender of these rights. 

Like any other court in the United States, the Supreme Court needs to make unbiased decisions about every case. True justice comes from an impartial decision that will look at the purpose and meaning of the law instead of the will of the people.  

If the court had bowed to popular opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, for example, injustice and racism would have continued to run rampant in our country. The court upheld equality, liberty, and the Constitution, and opposed the tyranny of mob rule. 

Instead of trying to politically influence the court, the Senate should confirm candidates who will uphold justice. Barrett will maintain the integrity of the justice system if confirmed to the Supreme Court. She will remain true to the law and maintain the balance of power that preserves the freedoms we cherish. 

 

Lillian Tweten is a sophomore studying politics.