Rachel Parent ~ Guest Writer
As of Monday, Oct. 26, a new supreme court justice has been appointed to the highest council of the land. With a split decision of 52 to 48 to confirm Justice Barrett 8 days before the presidential election, it leads Americans to wonder at the workings of the supreme court for years to come. With conservative justices leading the majority by 6-3, rulings are bound to lean more towards the right than previously. With the appointment of J. Barrett following in the footsteps of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was known for a more liberal approach in her rulings, it shows just how different the court she ruled on for 27 years will become in the decades to come. J. Barrett, who is claimed to favor beliefs held by her mentor Justice Scalia, is bound to push the conservative agenda now that she is sworn into such an influential position.
Traditionally, when a justice is sworn into the supreme court, they are expected to shed their personal beliefs, their elected official’s beliefs, and congressional beliefs, and instead bolster the rights needed for American citizens. Previously J. Barrett had signed a statement criticizing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as it mandated for contraception to be covered by health insurance plans, which was a “grave violation of religious freedom.” Three years later, she signed a letter addressed to the Catholic bishop which discussed “the value of human life from conception to natural death” as well as “family founded on the indissoluble commitment of man and women”. Seeing as these personal beliefs have an overlap with current controversial SCOTUS cases, such as Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, it causes some sort of unrest for more liberial minded voters.
She also has stated previously she is in alignment with the textualist view, that being the constitution as the primary decision maker, not previous court rulings. This is generally regarded as a more conservative interpretation of a court’s rulings, seeing as it is outlined less so on the current precedents and more so on the literal interpretation of the constitution. This is on par with her mentor J. Scalia, seeing as he was infamous for following that belief as well.
In the current happenings with her swearing in ceremony, she has been asked by the Pennsylvania court to recuse herself from the current rulings in place towards their case. The case is dealing with mail in ballots, specifically those that come three days after the election without legible post marks. The Supreme Court of PA deemed this constitutional, where it was later repealed and taken on by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Seeing as this issue deals directly with the current presidential election, and the president who elected her to SCOTUS, a conflict of interest is a potential hazard and one that the appellant is not looking to trifle with.
As J. Barrett has not officially ruled in any cases, it is hard to predict just where her rulings will fall for the years to come. However, with the fear that the highest court of the land is now swaying more towards right-winged thinkerst, it is a hope that she will uphold some sort of equilibrium between the conservative and liberal-minded justices.