Amy Coney Barrett carries the baggage of a tense political atmosphere

Written By Shannon Hartnett

President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett for The U.S. Supreme Court’s open seat following Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and, as always, many opinions are circulating the decision. 

There are two main topics of conversation in this discussion: the stacking of the Supreme Court and the candidate herself. Both are important topics that need to be discussed, but it is important to remember they are different. 

The simpler of the two is the actual seat in the court and what this will mean for each political party. Barrett is a conservative leaning nominee which would throw the balance of the court. This is an issue for many because if she were to succeed in her nomination, the liberal leaning judges would need two conservative judges to switch party lines rather than only one. 

This is definitely an issue. The Supreme Court should not be swayed to one side of the political spectrum. It should be equal in party affiliations and ideology. Not only are citizens in distress about this issue, but they are also upset that this process is being done hastily. With less than 30 days until the election on November 4, many find this process as a method to intentionally lean the Supreme Court to be more conservative than it already is. That’s exactly what this is. It is a ploy to hold the majority in the Supreme Court. 

Of course this is disheartening to many citizens to see our political leaders making decisions like this. What is also more unfortunate about the matter is that Barrett may even make a good conservative nominee if the baggage surrounding the process was not there. She is praised for her good behavior and her ability to talk through many disagreements while remaining civil. reported that “[Barrett] has built a reputation of being more diplomatic. Her friends and former students, clerks and colleagues describe a woman confident in her own legal analysis, willing to engage and debate on even the smallest details of cases, but unfailingly polite.” This behavior is ultimately good for the Supreme Court. 

Another issue that comes into conversation is Barrett’s religious beliefs. Not only is Barrett a conservative in politics, but she also identifies as Catholic. People see this as a violation of the separation of church. This is not the case. 

Barrett is able to be a Catholic Republician and still make unbiased decisions. There is a difference between what you believe and what decisions you make for all citizens. A hot topic that comes up when talking about religion and politics is abortion. Many news platforms suggest that if Barrett is appointed she will overturn Roe v. Wade. By assuming that a person’s religious beliefs determine every decision they make, especially in the Supreme Court, is foolish. 

According to, Barrett has aligned with the view that Roe v. Wade will endure in some form. Barrett declared that the landmark ruling’s “fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion,” will likely remain. “The controversy right now is about funding,” she added. “It’s a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded.” She also made the comment that policymakers should focus on supporting poor women in an effort to reduce the number of abortions.

Truthfully, this is a decent assessment coming from a person who holds conservative ideals. Unfortunately, due to the rash decision making and the attempt to pack the Supreme Court, Barrett’s policy making skills are not going to be treated as such. Instead, she is being judged for her religious beliefs because many people are under the impression that she will use them to change decisions and make policies that affect all Americans.

In today’s political climate, a situation like this one is tricky to navigate. There are clear grievances that need to be addressed, but sometimes the nominee gets dragged along with the political circus. Barrett has not yet been elected and only time will tell how she does on the job. As long as we look at her speech, decisions, and demeanor, we succeed in criticizing a candidate. If we overlook these characteristics and only rely on preconceived notions based on religion and party shenanigans, we risk failure.