Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been perceived as a wild card since joining the Supreme Court in late 2020. As the only right-leaning woman on the high court, Barrett has been targeted by both sides.
During the nomination process, Barrett received a barrage of criticism from leftists for not being pro-woman enough. Of course, “pro-woman” sentiments on the Left translate to unabashed support for abortion, among other things. Additionally, Barrett’s personal life, including her Catholic faith and a large family, with two adopted children from Haiti, was mocked.
Since taking her oath, however, Barrett has sometimes become a target of the Right. This happens if she joins the minority and stands alongside her left-leaning colleagues against the conservative majority. Recently, Barrett did this when she joined the minority in the 5-4 ruling concerning President Donald Trump’s deportation powers under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Though Barrett joined in a partial and not full dissent, it was viewed by some on the Right as a traitorous move against the president who nominated her.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 split to uphold Tennessee’s ban on transgender “care” for minors, which includes puberty blockers. Unsurprisingly, the three left-leaning justices dissented.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling “authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.”
But the court’s sole job was to decide whether the Tennessee ban violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The majority concluded it does not.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. … Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us … but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”
Declaring that the ruling is somehow “authorizing harm” to transgender minors and their families is not accurate, either in a legal or moral sense.
As part of the majority in this decision, Barrett was once again back in the good graces of those who had decided she was a traitor. It’s true that Wednesday’s decision was not shocking in terms of the split. Around the country, voters are divided on this issue along ideological lines. And even some who find themselves more sympathetic to minors transitioning are leery of the long-term effects such “care” has on children physically, emotionally, and mentally.
But given Barrett’s track record so far, observers shouldn’t get too comfortable with their assumptions. If anything, Barrett has shown herself to be an independent jurist who is not preoccupied with pleasing the crowd. This is what we should all want for those who have been nominated and appointed to the highest court in the land. Her sometimes surprising decisions don’t mean she’s abandoned good sense or education as an individual or a jurist. It means her interpretations may be different than those of her peers on the court, even those with whom she is most closely aligned.
Conservatives who believe Barrett’s time on the court will only support them are sure to be disappointed. The same goes for those on the Left who assume her joining the minority one or more times is a reflection of a broad, philosophical change.
AMY CONEY BARRETT IS NOT BEHOLDEN TO TRUMP
These reactions seemingly exist because Barrett is a woman, and some court observers don’t quite know what to do with that. The women on the court lean left, except for Barrett. But she isn’t joining with them because of shared biology. At the same time, she isn’t joining her right-leaning, male colleagues automatically, either.
Given the political polarization in our country, there’s a tendency to look toward Supreme Court justices as party proxies. But they are not. What’s more, they shouldn’t be. Their role isn’t to make the president who nominated them happy. Barrett’s role, and the role of her colleagues, is to interpret the law and decide accordingly. If that’s disappointing, it’s not because Barrett is flawed. It’s because the role of a justice is misunderstood.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a contributor to the Magnolia Tribune.