by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
Modern debates over judicial nominees, to our great national shame, seem to feature more attacks on the person than sincere deliberation about his or her professional credentials.
Missing is any reflection on the nominee’s judicial philosophy and demonstrated commitment to upholding the Constitution. …
… [D]espite what progressive detractors may say about the minivan-driving judge from Indiana, Amy Coney Barrett fits the mold of her former boss, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. …
… Barrett said that Scalia was “what we want in a justice, someone who applies the law, who follows the law where it goes and doesn’t decide simply on the basis of partisan preference.” …
… In the same speech, Barrett made known her commitment to protecting the Constitution over legislating from the bench: “We shouldn’t be putting people on the court that share our policy preferences, we should be putting people on the court who want to apply the Constitution.”
This should give … all Americans confidence that precious freedoms such as religious liberty, free speech, and the right to bear arms are safe in the hands of someone who would hold in high regard the Constitution that secured these blessings of liberty.
With a written constitution, the United States is unique among much of the world. As Barrett noted before an audience at Princeton University just last year: “Our Constitution is truly remarkable. It’s not an aspirational document, it’s a legal one and it has shaped our politics from the very beginning.”
Without this written social compact we call the Constitution, Barrett said, the history of America would be incomplete. Why? “Because decisions of national consequence must fit within the terms of our national charter, the history of America is necessarily intertwined with the Constitution,” she explained.