The Los Angeles Times on Saturday penned an editorial saying Amy Coney Barrett is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court but she shouldn't be confirmed for a number of reasons. Their two main hang-ups: the next president should nominate the person to take former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat on the court and Barrett's too conservative for their liking.
From the editorial (emphasis mine):
We continue to believe that the vacancy created by Ginsburg’s death so close to the Nov. 3 election shouldn’t be filled until after the inauguration of the winner of that election, whether it is Trump or Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
Ramming through a Supreme Court nomination would reward the hypocrisy of Senate Republicans who wouldn’t even consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick B. Garland in 2016, also an election year, supposedly because it would deprive voters of a say in the choice of a new justice. A rushed confirmation also would exacerbate the poisonous partisanship that has infected the Senate confirmation process and undermine the credibility of the court.
That would be our position no matter who was chosen by Trump. But his selection of Barrett, a judge on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and a longtime law professor at the University of Notre Dame, is especially provocative and polarizing.
Given the nearness of election day and the fact that he already has installed two conservatives on the court, Trump could have made the conciliatory gesture of choosing an older jurist without a pronounced ideological profile. Instead, he selected Barrett, 48, whose record leads conservatives to hope — and liberals to fear — that she would cement a conservative majority on the courts for decades to come on issues ranging from affirmative action to gun control to immigration.
Of course, the editorial board's main concern is Roe v. Wade and upholding the precedent for abortion. The board made the argument that Barrett's stance on long-standing precedent needs to be called into question.
Barrett should be questioned about whether she recognizes that Roe vs. Wade and other long-standing precedents in the court are entitled to respect, and that overruling a precedent causes a “jolt to the legal system,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at his confirmation hearings in 2005.
As Guy pointed out, this has nothing to do with Barrett's qualifications and everything to do with her personal beliefs. Is she qualified? Absolutely. Does she have the experience necessary? You bet. Then why the hangup? The left is worried Barrett will be the nail in the coffin. She will solidify a conservative Supreme Court.
they’ve got nothing pic.twitter.com/Q96jD319Ap
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 26, 2020
The worst part of this entire point of view: lefties demand equality and want women to be treated fairly. They say women are often overlooked because of their sex, beliefs, morals – or lack thereof – instead of their qualifications. If they have substantial issues about her judgements and decisions while on the bench, that's one thing. But this is an example of them feeding into the sexism they always talk about.
