Judge Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed Oct. 26. 2020 by 52 votes to 48 in the Senate.  Barrett is to replace judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died this September. From her previous cases on immgriation, gun control, and abortion Barrett while be a relaible right wing vote, unlike her preedisaroy Ginsberg who reliably voted left. This is President Donald Trump’s second court nomination, and it comes a week before the presidential election. With this confirmation the U.S supreme court has a consvertive majority.  

   Some feel that Barrett nomination this close to the election is unfair because in 2016 former President Barack Obama tried to replace nominate justice Merrick Garland, but the Republican majority Senate denied his nomination feeling that it was too close to the presidential election. Junior Caroline Brinks agrees with this argument, and feels that the nomination should have waited until after the election.

   “Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, especially 8 days before the Presidential election and after over 60 million ballots have been cast, is to me a blatant dismissal of the will of the American people,” said Brinks. “If I were to use the same idea the Senate mobilized in denying prospective justice Merrick Garland a hearing during the Obama administration, I’d say Justice Barrett was appointed much too close to the election.”

   Barrett’s nomination is an important one because her vote along with the converstive court could influence important issues like Obama Care and abortion. Barrett, due to her stance on gay marrige and rights, has gained poularity among religious groups, but dislike from libreals. However, despite being a Catholic, Barrett has stated that it doesn’t influence her decisions. 

   Brinks is concerned that Barrett along with a consvertive majority court could overturn court cases that she believes are essential to women and LGBQ+. 

   “It is encouraging to see women assuming positions of legal power in our government; however, just because Barrett is a woman does not make her confirmation or agenda inherently feminist,” said Brinks. “After reviewing her judicial record, I do fear for many rights and freedoms that are presently guaranteed to female and LGBTQ+ Americans.”