Students are not in favor of Amy Coney Barnett
Desteny Maragh – Reporter
The conservative, religious and nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, is not a fan favorite among students.
President Donald J. Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s, the Supreme Court Justice and co-founder of the Women’s Rights, now vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
“Any women who thinks men are still the head of the household and should be treated as royalty, is no women I want in a position of power,” said philosophy major Kiana Shane, a junior.
Shane said in today’s world, women as a whole are on the rise and are making strides. “We just lost Ruth,” said Shane. “Her dying wish was to have her successor named by the next president, and we all know why.”
Project died at age 87 last month, due to complications of metastatic pancreas cancer less than seven weeks before the presidential election.
“Donald Trump selfishly would pick a candidate despite Ruth’s wishes, and one whose ideology is totally opposite of Ruth’s,” said Shane.
Shane said she hopes Barrett’s personal beliefs will not dictate how she makes laws, but she feels it might.
“I’m not mad at her values, everyone can’t have the same morals, but she is not at all a good fit for the Supreme Court, said Shane. “Her personal beliefs will hinder the evolution of women’s rights.”
Ginsburg was a pioneer for gender equality throughout her distinguished career.
She once said, “women’s rights are an essential part of the overall human rights agenda, trained on the equal dignity and ability to live in freedom all people should enjoy.”
Some students agree with Bader’s rhetoric compared to Barretts.
“She is not a suitable candidate for the role because she does check uplift basic law practices,” said nursing major Hillary Griggs, a sophomore.
“Stare decisis” is the policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles proven from decisions in earlier classes.
Meaning, cases like Roe v. Wade should set a precedence in how the Court system deliberates.
“She literally signed a letter in 2006 against that case which made the right to abortion legal. She should never be able to sit on the Supreme Court,” said Griggs.
Barrett’s letter said, “It is time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children.”
At Trump’s nominee reveal, he quoted Barrett saying “Being a judge takes courage. You are not there to decide cases as you may prefer. You are there to do your duty and to follow the law wherever it may take you.”
Some students remain skeptical that Barrett will follow the law.
“I don’t think she should serve on the Supreme Court because she doesn’t care about women’s rights,” said philosophy major Julie Holub, a senior.
Holob said she feels that Barrett cannot be trusted.
“How can the president be allowed to place this nominee, and have her be pushed through just, but when Obama tried to appoint a new justice before leaving office they said it was improper because his term was ending,” said Holub.
“I am not focused on the betterment of myself, but for everyone in America. So as a liberal, I am concerned how Amy might rule on abortion and the Affordable Care Act because that affects a large demographic,” said Holub.
While some students are worried about Barrett’s views on women’s rights, one is more worried about her views on Stare decisis and how it can affect Massachusetts v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The 2007 case proved that greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act, serving as the basis for all the climate policy efforts of the Obama administration.
The case also affirmed that states had the right to go to court to challenge the federal government’s failure to act on climate.
“On a scale, we are at one of the worst global climate evolutions ever,” said biology major, La-Jean Henry, a sophomore. “California is burning down and if Amy is appointed, she has the power to eliminate basic rights for people to voice their climate concerns.”