When Justice Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump, conservatives expected a fearless originalist and a rock-solid textualist—someone who would uphold the Constitution without succumbing to the political winds. But in the few years she has been on the Court, she has let us down in crucial moments, siding with liberal justices and proving herself unreliable when it truly matters.
A Pattern of Betrayal: Barrett’s Decisions Favoring the Left
Barrett has shown time and time again that she is more concerned with optics than principles. Most recently, she joined Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court’s resident RINO (Republican In Name Only), and the liberal justices in yet another disappointing ruling. In Justice Alito’s dissent, he wrote: “Does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise, I am stunned.” This is becoming a disturbing pattern for Barrett, who has demonstrated an alarming reluctance to overturn lower-court decisions and a clear fear of being perceived as partisan.
Some of the most egregious examples of her decisions include:
•Jones v. Hendrix (2023): She shockingly sided with the liberal justices Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent, pushing for more leniency in habeas corpus appeals.
•Criminal Justice Cases: She has voted in favor of procedural fairness in ways that mimic progressive reasoning rather than a firm commitment to law and order.
•Employment & Labor Cases: She has sometimes ruled against business interests, a position that undermines the pro-capitalist stance of true conservative jurisprudence.
The “Optics-Driven” Justice: Fear of Being Partisan
Barrett’s misguided obsession with how the Court is perceived is a direct betrayal of textualist and originalist values. The law is not about feelings. The law is not about public perception. A justice’s job is to interpret the Constitution as written, not to worry about whether CNN and The New York Times will call the Court “too conservative.”
Yet, in 2021, Barrett gave a speech at the University of Louisville where she uttered the laughable claim:
“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”
That statement alone should have been a red flag. Why is a supposedly originalist justice worried about being seen as a partisan hack? Would Antonin Scalia have said something like that? Absolutely not. But Barrett? She cares too much about how she is perceived, and that fear seeps into her rulings.
Gender Over Proper Vetting: A Critical Conservative Error
Let’s be honest—Amy Coney Barrett was recommended to Trump for two reasons:
1. She was a woman.
2. She was filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.
There were other more qualified conservative jurists who would have been far more reliable on the Court, but the political pressure to nominate a woman proved too strong. Conservatives made a classic liberal error: they chose identity over quality.
Would Trump have picked a male nominee with Barrett’s weak record? Likely not. But the push to replace a female justice with a female justice resulted in a rushed decision that we are now paying for. This mistake will become especially costly when major cases—on gun rights, free speech, and election integrity—land in front of the Supreme Court.
Why Conservatives Can’t Rely on Barrett
Barrett’s record suggests she will continue to be weak when it matters most:
•She defers too much to lower courts instead of asserting the Supreme Court’s authority.
•She fears overturning bad precedents out of concern for court legitimacy.
•She aligns herself with Roberts and the liberals when the eyes of the nation are on the Court.
This is a failure of judgment, a failure of courage, and a failure of conservatism.
Conclusion: Conservatives Must Demand Better
The next time a Supreme Court seat opens, conservatives must learn from this mistake. It is not enough for a nominee to check a demographic box. It is not enough for a nominee to simply have a conservative label. True constitutionalists stand firm in their principles, regardless of media attacks or public pressure.
Amy Coney Barrett has proven that she cannot be trusted in high-stakes moments. Conservatives need to hold the line and ensure that the next nominee is a Scalia, a Thomas, or an Alito—not another Roberts and certainly not another Barrett.
The Supreme Court is too important to allow emotion, fear, or media narratives to dictate our choices. We need justices who rule with conviction—not ones who cave to the pressure of perception.
I only hope those that recommended Barrett to President Trump no longer hold any influence over the current administration.
Leave a Reply