Carrie Severino: Amy Coney Barrett's nomination -- a milestone that can be undone

close

Video

Amy Coney Barrett explains why she accepted Supreme Court nomination

SCOTUS nominee tells Sen. Thom Tillis that in order to protect freedom, 'we need to participate in that work.'

America had the opportunity to get to know Judge Amy Coney Barrett last week, hearing from her in her own words and witnessing firsthand what a brilliant Supreme Court justice she will be.  But that has not stopped the left from looking for any excuse they can to prevent her confirmation—or to diminish its impact by court-packing if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the election.  

Senate Democrats were relentless in their quest to get Judge Barrett to weigh in on their campaign issues and signal how she would decide cases that might come before her.  But through over 18 hours of questioning, the nominee proved to be unflappable.    

Gracious and poised, she patiently explained that, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan at her own nomination hearings, she could not grade or provide a “thumbs up or thumbs down” on Supreme Court precedents.    
  
Judge Barrett stressed that she “can’t take policy positions or express [her] personal views before the Committee, because [her] personal views don’t have anything to do with how [she] would decide cases.”  Indeed, to offer hints about how she might rule on a case, or to suggest that she would decide cases based on her own policy preferences, would violate the judicial code of ethics, which requires judges to be impartial and give everyone a fair hearing.  

MERCEDES SCHLAPP: BIDEN WON'T ANSWER ON COURT PACKING -- BUT DEMS APPEAR TO DRAW INSPIRATION FROM SOCIALISTS
   
Her qualifications were without question. Even the liberal American Bar Association awarded Barrett its highest rating of Well Qualified. After spending “thousands of hours” talking to people who know the nominee and examining her record, that conclusion was inescapable.

Judge Barrett, people told the ABA, has an “excellent reputation for integrity and outstanding character,” is “decent, selfless, and sincere,” has a “staggering academic mind,” and is an “intellectual giant” with an “engaging warmth.”  
   
The hearings allowed Judge Barrett to showcase her brilliant legal mind and her calm, measured approach.  

Operating without any notes, she effortlessly discussed the nuances of constitutional law, explained her judicial philosophy, and described in detail many of the opinions and articles she has written over the last 17 years.  With clarity and precision, she offered her approach to the law—a commitment to originalism, textualism and judicial humility.  She summarized it simply, saying that a judge “must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were.”  
  
The confirmation of Judge Barrett would give the Court its first originalist majority since the advent of the modern debate over the Constitution. Because that would mark a decisive defeat of the longstanding Democratic use of courts for policy rather than law, the far-left that has taken over the Democratic Party now demands that once they regain power, they will pack the Court with extra seats in order to wipe out the originalist majority and enshrine a liberal majority.

The Democrats’ standard-bearer, Biden, notoriously dodged questions about court-packing, even saying voters don’t deserve to know the answer, until he showed his hand at the ABC News town hall on Thursday. If Barrett were confirmed this month, he threatened, he would be “open to considering what happens from that point on.” His running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., stated last year she was “open to increasing the numbers on the Supreme Court.”  
   
The nation should not deceive itself about Democrats’ intentions if they were to win control of the elected branches of government. What America saw this past week was a brilliant and humble woman with a sincere love of the law. Judge Barrett showed that she is entirely committed to the Constitution and to the rule of law and that she will be fair and impartial on the Supreme Court.  

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
   
Court-packing would be nothing less than an effort to ensure that so much of what Amy Coney Barrett offers the Court would be snuffed out—and by a cynical power play that would do incalculable damage to the institution, short-term and long-term. That would be a defeat for constitutionalism itself.  

So if you believe a Justice Barrett and her judicial philosophy would be good for the Court and our country, understand the consequences of your vote for president and for Senate.

The expected victory of her confirmation—as well as of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—can be completely undone if those most hostile to her succeed in their attempted power grab.  

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

If the Democrats get the opportunity to pack the Supreme Court, it won’t be with justices who believe that judges should not be policymakers. Quite the contrary. 

What America will soon wake up to is a new and larger Supreme Court. But this new body will look less like a court and more like an unelected and unaccountable super-legislature, packed with liberal justices who will use the institution to implement their left-wing policies for decades to come.   

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM CARRIE SEVERINO