Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court

Judge Barrett is an originalist and a textualist. This means that she interprets the Constitution and statutes based on the original understanding or meaning of the text. This is the correct way to look at any issue that may come before the Court. No court, especially not the Supreme Court, should be in the business of de facto lawmaking or loosely interpreting the Constitution to try to save clearly unconstitutional statutes, which is what Democrats clearly prefer.

Judge Barrett’s brilliance was on display during the two days that she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Although Democrats were clearly hostile, Judge Barrett was calm, unphased by the abrasive and petty partisanship. She echoed past nominees, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, by not tipping her hand in where she may stand on pending cases or hypothetical cases that may come before the Court.

Democrats are trying desperately to make Judge Barrett’s nomination about the pending Supreme Court case on the so-called “Affordable Care Act” (ACA). Judge Barrett didn’t write the ACA; congressional Democrats did.

In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the individual mandate would be unconstitutional without a penalty. The penalty was zeroed out in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Congressional Democrats wrote the statute suggesting that the individual mandate is a centerpiece of the ACA and didn’t include a severability clause in the law.

If Democrats want to avoid these controversies, perhaps they should write better laws. Furthermore, Judge Barrett’s poised responses to Senate Democrats’ questions about the ACA demonstrate that she would fairly judge any case regarding the ACA, or any other highly political policy matter.