With the Republic Senate and President Trump looking to push through a Republican leaning justice onto the Supreme Court, there is a significant deal of controversy surrounding this nomination as her hearing approaches and as Republicans look to fill up the court really quickly. While a young face at 48 potentially entering the Supreme Court, Barrett poses a threat to rulings like Roe v. Wade and policy like the Affordable Care Act. In the wake of Covid spreading more and more, Barrett's nomination comes at a dangerous time. She was noted to be unmasked at various gatherings involving the White House and the future of her nomination and success in getting put through to her spot.
Republican perspectives are pushing the necessity for this despite 2016's behaviours and results. However, some note that anyone would make this power grab if they could to try and pack the courts. Many are describing how that's simply wrong due to the results and implications of Marbury v. Madison, not seeking to serve a political purpose. In the wake of these issues with Covid and the dangers of making such a close nomination, especially an arguably unpopular one (ahem Federalist 10) Barrett's a strange quantity of support despite the opposition to her.
The course of things and events going forward are going to be unfolding fast as Judge Barrett's hearing approaches.
4 comments:
The Republicans attempting to pack the courts could become very problematic for the US in the future. If it is decided that Amy Coney Barrett will be in the Supreme Court, I could imagine her being there for many presidencies to come since she is fairly young. This could be a problem because that means that decisions like Roe v Wade could be overturned, or attempted to be overturned multiple times in the future. The impact of COVID on this whole situation hasn't made it easier either. COVID has caused many problems to the US, and electing a new Supreme Court Justice that specifically is against acts like the Affordable Care Act with no current replacement up for health care could cause the US to have an even worse time with COVID than right now. Overall, I think electing a new Supreme Court Justice before the election is a bad idea and I hope they consider that it could cause more harm than good.
Thank you for sharing!
What is known as court-packing has had a long history in the United States, starting from the very beginning. In APUSH, we had learned that both Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the very beginning of the nation's history practiced it. One prime example of this is shown through Marbury V. Madison, as you mentioned in your article. It has been common in the past to court-pack, especially in the wake of the possibility of a future transfer of power. This practice disappoints me. Firstly, the Founding Fathers wrote the system of checks and balances with the intention to keep the Supreme Court strictly non-partisan. However, it quickly became a partisan matter. Today, it is perhaps the most partisan in America's recent history. In an ideal sense, partisan politics should not play into the role of the Supreme Court. However, Amy Coney Barrett's rushed nomination and hearings illustrate that America has deviated far from the checks and balances that were created upon its founding.
Amy Coney Barrett's nomination as a Supreme Court Justice has sparked quite a bit of dissent among individuals for many reasons. Appointing Barrett would mean that there would be a Republican majority in the court for years, possibly stagnating the future of our government. Democrats have argued that the Senate is moving too quickly in the nomination process, urging Congress to halt the decision until after the election, thinking that it would be fairer to have the president elected to determine a new justice. On October 17th today, the Women's March occurred in Washington D.C. to protest against President Trump and the Supreme Court nominee. Many women were dressed in "Handmaid's Tale" costumes, referring to the subjugated women in Margaret Atwood's novel, to affirm their belief that Barrett's appointment would hurt women's rights. As Barrett has shown her stance on topics such as abortion and Roe v. Wade, there remains the implication that women may see regression and be limited by this decision in the future.
I'm not surprised that the Senate Republicans broke the precedent and promises they set in 2016. It's not just that hypocrisy is expected, it's that this was too good of an opportunity for them to pass up. The appointment of Supreme Court justices is one of the most important and impactful things an administration can do, and I doubt anyone really expected them to risk losing a chance to put a 48-year old conservative judge on the court. If Biden wins the presidency, I'd be interested to see what his reaction is, if he even does anything. When asked if they were planning on increasing the number of judges on the court, both Biden and Harris have avoided giving a direct answer (at least from what I've seen), which makes me think that they've probably given serious consideration to that option.
Post a Comment