Amy Coney Barrett: The Continuation of the Republic (A Center Right-Take)

Since the founding of the United States, the Judiciary has been held as not only an institution of American jurisprudence, but also as one of the checks and balances put into place by the framers of the Constitution. This most recent nomination and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett has highlighted one thing: Americans are not being taught the fundamentals of American government and politics.

As a student of politics and the law, it distresses me when citizens do not recognize the universal importance of Supreme Court nominations; particularly because they are one of the ways that we maintain the continuance and consistency of our republic. Much of the controversy in Justice Barrett’s confirmation lies in that she was selected during an election year and by President Trump. For obvious reasons, President Trump is a controversial figure. However, arguments of personal disliking are not legal precedent to why Justice Barrett should not be nominated.

As our Constitution says, “he [the president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court... whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Nowhere in the Constitution does it restrict the president to only be able to nominate justices outside of an election year. Additionally, I posit a quote by President Obama in The Washington Post, “Your job doesn’t stop until you are voted out or until your term expires.”

Although I disagree with President Obama ideologically, I do agree with him in regards to this statement on the presidency. To affirm this even more, the late Justice Ginsburg herself said, “The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four.” I argue that the nomination of Justice Barrett, even during an election year, is not only within the power of the president as per the Constitution, but also his moral duty to preserve our republic. When John F. Kennedy was brutally assassinated, did the United States halt its executive governance in mourning for the late president? No. It may seem a bit brutal, but the government, and no less politics, stops for no one. With a country as large and diverse as ours, it is impractical to leave federal positions vacant, especially one that is purposefully designed to be a check on the other branches of government.

I sympathize with arguments of the mourning period for Justice Ginsburg. Yet, I again must pose the question: if the shoe was on the other foot, would a Democratic president and Senate act any differently? Given the ever growingly toxic nature of our politics, and precedent from recent history, I am not inclined to believe that Democrats would not have done the same. And, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would be forced to accept it. Not because I like it, but because I respect and recognize the balancing process that the framers of the Constitution so carefully designed.

By: Ryan Yang