Amy Coney Barrett’s Originalist Beliefs Threaten the American Dream



Photo By Julian Velasco

Amy Coney Barrett is President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. She prides herself on being a originalist, which seems counterintuitive considering how much America has changed since the constitution was first written. Her ideals will ultimately end up harming the American people. Photo courtesy of Julian Velasco.

By Amy Simon, Reporter

President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court mominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, participated in three days of confirmation hearings from Monday, Oct. 12 to Wednesday, Oct. 14. On day two, she blatantly announced that she was an originalist, someone who interprets and asserts their statements with the Constitution in its original form. However, rights of the American people in the 21st century should not be solely based on the laws created centuries ago. Many of these articles, including slavery, the right of all people to vote freely, and the right for all people to own property have been rightfully abolished.

“It’s not the law of Amy, it’s the law of the American people,” Barrett said during her second confirmation hearing. “And I think originalism and textualism, to me, boil down to that, to a commitment to the rule of law, to not disturbing or changing or updating or adjusting in line with my own policy preferences what that law required.”

Under the original Constitution laws, Barrett wouldn’t even be considering this position. In 1971, it was unconstitutional for any women of any race to be elected as president. Article two of the Constitution refers to the people in power using the pronoun “he.” So what does Barrett mean when she says that she’s an originalist? There are two clear choices. On one hand, Barrett could be uneducated on the articles of the Constitution, which is embarrassing considering she teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. On the other hand she could believe in unequal rights, giving herself special privileges and diminishing the rights of other people.

Denying Barrett for her originalist beliefs wouldn’t be the first time the Supreme Court has rejected this philosophy. In 1987, Robert Bork was denied confirmation within the Supreme Court for being an originalist by a roll call vote of 58 to 42. His beliefs were deemed as a serious threat to American lives. He believed that only political speech was protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, and he ruled against the right to privacy for employees who underwent sterilization procedures to keep their jobs.

Having Barrett take the next Supreme Court seat would ruin years of uplifting and building the constitution. For one, Barrett doesn’t believe in the Fourteenth Amendment, a law granting citizenship to all people born in America and guaranteeing them, “equal protection of the laws.” Barrett wrote in a law article that the amendment is, “possibly illegitimate,” and has said countless times that the Brown v. Board of Education, which deemed racial segregation in public schools unlawful, was incorrectly decided.

It is abominable to believe that the view of originalists can solve modern day issues. Make no mistake, Barrett will be a threat to everyone’s lives, just like Bork was over 30 years ago. If you care about other people, no matter their race, gender, or sexual orientation, you need to realize Barrett is one of the worst things that could happen on the Supreme Court.