RBG’s Legacy & the Threats Amy Coney Barrett Poses To It
Ava Saunders
WHEATON, ILLINOIS—Ruth Bader Ginsburg—known as "the great dissenter" on the Supreme Court—was a champion of civil rights for decades. While her role as the leading voice of minority rights on today's conservative-leaning court led to her recent rise as a pop-culture icon ("the notorious RBG"), her history as a judicial activist also inspired millions.
In United States v. Virginia, for example, she wrote that “generalizations about the way women are, estimates of what is appropriate for most women, no longer justify denying opportunity to women whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description.” In that case, she wrote for the majority, and the court made it a requirement for the all-male Virginia Military Institute to accept female applications.
While United States v. Virginia is a landmark case, her most famous opinions are the ones in which she dissents. In the 2013 decision on the Voting Rights Act, a ruling which would make investigations into courts that have discriminated in the past required. She wrote in her dissenting statement "the sad irony of today's decision lies in [the Supreme Court’s] utter failure to grasp why the [ruling] has proven effective."
These dissenting opinions earned her an iconic reputation in pop culture as the “Notorious R.B.G.” It is widely agreed upon by both parties that she brought significant changes to our country. Perhaps sensing a popular shift away from nationalism and conservative social policy, the Justice’s granddaughter confirmed that her dying wish was that the president should wait until after the election to appoint her replacement, so that the people would have a chance to influence who was appointed to replace her.
President Trump made the executive decision to disregard that and nominated Amy Coney Barrett. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell rushed through a hearing in just days. Unlike RBG, whose opinions were clear for anyone who cared to look, Barrett was intentionally opaque. Not only did she refuse to give her opinion on the Affordable Care Act, climate change, and abortion rights, but she even refused to comment on clearly non-controversial topics such as the duty if a president to submit to a peaceful transfer of power. She also declined to give her opinion on the existence of system racism. "I believe that racism persists in our country but, as I explained at the hearing, whether there is 'systemic racism' is a public policy question of substantial controversy, as evidenced by the disagreement among Senators on this very question during the hearing," she explained in her written response to the questions asked. Her most common answer to questions posed by Democrats was that “it would be inappropriate for me to offer a response to these questions.” However, when asked by Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana “Who does the laundry in your household?” a question the nominees predecessor would have scoffed at and dismissed as casual sexism, she answered politely and honestly.
In the US, we've gotten used to conservative judges politely refusing to admit their bias. One need not look far to uncover Justice Barrett's judicial core values. She is a devout Catholic and is pro-life, once a member of her Alma Mater Notre Dames “Faculty for Life” club. She once wrote that court precedents on the topic (including Roe v. Wade) are not “sacrosanct.” She also wrote that the public’s response to Roe v. Wade, and cases like it, reflects the false idea that “legal precedent can declare a permanent victor in a divisive constitutional struggle.”
Her anti-abortion leanings aside, the nation gets a whole host of bias when solidifying a 6-3 conservative court. A host of programs designed to make our society more tolerant and inclusive are also potential casualties. In regards to the Affordable Care Act, she wrote that Justice Roberts “pushed the act beyond it’s plausible meaning to save it”. She defended the Trump administrations’ rule that prevented immigrants from permanent residence if they regularly needed public assistance, dissented during the court decisions to restrict second amendment rights to non-violent felons, and assisted in blocking the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's attempt to prevent employers from transferring employees to more dangerous places based on their race. She even signed a letter in 2015 which defined marriage as “the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman.” If the left is supposed to dismiss that letter’s implications, the Christian fundamentalists certainly aren’t. She accepted lecture fees, for example, from the Alliance Defending Freedom (classified as an anti LGBTQ+ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center).
Her past decisions, refusal to state her opinion, and the views of the president who nominated her are a direct contradiction to the justice who came before her. Ginsberg was a compelling voice for an entire generation of under-represented minority voices, voices which Barrett's appointment threatens to silence.