Well, that didn’t take long.

The United States has suffered greatly since the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was one of the most ardent defenders of women’s and gay rights. She championed the Obergefell v. Hodges case, which resulted in the legalization of gay marriage. Now, two Supreme Court Justices want to tear it all down.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito issued a statement earlier this week declaring that they wanted to repeal their previous decision on the Obergefell case, therefore stripping the LGBTQ+ community of their right to marry. Their reasoning? In Thomas’ own words, the court’s previous decision “enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”

See the problem here?

The first amendment in the Bill of Rights is often interpreted to require separation of church and state. The line that states this, usually assigned to Thomas Jefferson, is that the establishment clause of the amendment declares that they build a “wall of separation between the church and state.” This prevented one’s religious beliefs from interfering with their ability to serve the American people. This law ought to invalidate Thomas and Alito’s statement. Technically, they are not supposed to consider how any decision they’ve made would impact people’s religious beliefs, unless it specifically infringes on the right of religious liberty.

But guess what? It doesn’t even matter. There will likely never be a time in the American government that church isn’t somehow connected with state. There is a National Prayer Breakfast held in Washington D.C. every year hosted by members of Congress – it really doesn’t get much more obvious than that. The White House is adorned with specifically Christian-oriented decorations during the winter holidays, including multiple Christmas trees. It shouldn’t be shocking anymore that there are religious reasons why people think same-sex marriage is immoral. That right is now in very serious danger.

This address from two Justices is only one more stepping stone on the path to reevaluating the decision that Obergefell represents. Amy Coney Barrett, who President Trump has nominated for the Supreme Court, has been very vocal about her Catholic beliefs. In 2015, she voiced her dissent with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriage. Should she truly be appointed to the Supreme Court, it’s almost inevitable that the decision will be appealed. Obergefell barely made it last time, scraping by with a 5-4 outcome. Barrett would sway that vote in the opposite direction.

I don’t know how many times the LGBTQ+ community needs to say it for it to sink in: gay rights are not – and should not be – a political issue. Someone’s mere existence should not be perceived as a threat to “religious liberty.” I’m amazed that this is still up for debate in the year 2020. There are bigger fish to fry. Aren’t we still in the middle of a global pandemic? The focus should not be on whether or LGBTQ+ individuals should be legally allowed to declare their love for one another.

All things considered, removing Obergefell invalidates the existence of millions of LGBTQ+ Americans, including those who are already married. There should be no reason at all that LGBTQ+ individuals pose some kind of a threat to those with religious values. By even considering repealing the case, the rights of such a marginalized community will be greatly impacted. Repealing this decision will be a major step backward in the fight for civil rights for all minorities in this country. The LGBTQ+ community is in serious trouble, and something needs to be done about it.

On Saturday, Sept. 26, President Donald Trump announced that he would be nominating Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, Barrett would be the third justice appointed to the Supreme Court by President Trump during his term. 

This nomination has sparked a partisan battle due to the nomination coming just 38 days before the election. This is similar to the controversy that surrounded President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland eight months before the 2016 election. In the days following the nomination, Democrats have been very critical of President Trump’s decision. 

“Which precedent do you really believe in?” Democratic New Jersey senator Cory Booker asked of Republicans. “Because you can’t say one thing and then do another. Barack Obama was putting up a nominee 269 days before an election and now we see Donald Trump doing it while people are voting in the midst of an election.”

While Garland was blocked by the Republican-led Senate then, it appears that this will not be the case for Barrett.

“We can slow it down, perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most. But we can’t stop the outcome,” Illinois Democratic senator Dick Durbin said of the nomination. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing is set for Oct. 12 although the spread of positive COVID-19 cases among the Senate Judiciary Committee may delay the hearing.

This is not the first time that Barrett was considered for a seat in the Supreme Court. She was near the top of President Trump’s list of candidates to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2019, but Trump stated that he was “saving her” for Ginsburg’s seat.

Barrett went to law school at Notre Dame where she graduated summa cum laude in 1997 and received the Hoynes Prize, the school’s highest honor, as the top student in her class.

Not long after graduating, Barrett worked as a clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia and was quick to align herself with Scalia’s conservative approach to the law saying, “his judicial philosophy is mine too.”

In regards to that philosophy, Barrett would consider herself an originalist. More specifically, she is an original public meaning originalist. “Courts ought to interpret with an eye towards current norms, push the country forward with an evolving idea of norms,” Barrett said when discussing the different types of originalism.

It is also well documented that Barrett is strongly against abortion. She signed a joint letter in 2015 that said: “the value of human life from conception to natural death… and marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman – provide a sure guide to the Christian life, promote women’s flourishing, and serve to protect the poor and most vulnerable among us.” 

Barrett also criticized Roe v. Wade as “creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand.” If appointed, many people worry about the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Barrett was a popular pick among conservatives for a seat on the Supreme Court partially because of her close affiliation with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his views. 

“She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution,” Trump said of Barrett during the announcement ceremony at the White House. 

Assuming that Barrett is appointed to the Supreme Court, the landscape of the court would shift even further to the right. Republican judges would outnumber Democratic judges six to three which could also influence the decisions of the Chief Justice.

As of the time of publishing, the Senate hearings are set for Oct. 12.

“Today, it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution: Judge Amy Coney Barrett.”

– President Donald J. Trump

This past week, President Donald Trump nominated Appellate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Barrett would be the successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the third justice that Trump has appointed during his tenure if confirmed. 

Ginsburg was one of the most brilliant constitutional scholars to ever sit on the Supreme Court and left a tremendous hole to be filled. However, Barrett, from an academic standpoint, is qualified. Barrett went to Rhodes College and graduated at the top of her class from Notre Dame Law. Trump quoted one of her law professors at Notre Dame as saying,  “Amy Coney is the best student I’ve ever had.” 

After Barrett graduated from law school, she clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. After that, she taught law at her alma mater for 15 years. Barrett was then appointed to the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2017 by President Trump. On paper, Barrett is qualified to serve on the highest court in the land. 

However, reality is often far from the expectation. The process of confirming Supreme Court Justices has become more politicized than the founding fathers ever intended. Before the 2000s, a confirmation receiving less than 70 votes was considered controversial. In our modern political atmosphere, it’s a battle to get 50 votes in favor. 

The Supreme Court should not be a political body – it never was supposed to be. The Supreme Court was never intended to turn into the third representative branch of the federal government. Nonetheless, the tribalism that runs rampant in the United States has created a deep and ever-widening divide between Democrats and Republicans. As the animosity between the dominant political parties in our country grows, the Supreme Court will once again be the battlefield for ideological differences that characterize our nation. 

While judging a potential Supreme Justice, in my opinion, there are two qualifiers: 1. The ability to read and interpret the Constitution and 2. What the current layout of the Supreme Court is. Both of these factors have equal importance but are very different from each other. Being a good Constitutional scholar is very difficult. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago by a group of men that had no idea about the problems we would face in our modern world. The ability to meticulously study every single word and translate it into the modern world while still holding to the intention of the law is a daunting endeavor. I believe that  Barrett achieves this standard. 

Being a Supreme Court Justice is less about being a judge or lawyer but more about a person’s ability to be a scholar. There’s a reason why having a law degree is not a requirement to sit on the highest court in the land. Instead, the intention of the Supreme Court has and always should be to build a coalition of the most brilliant and impartial constitutional minds alive. 

Barrett is most definitely a legal scholar worthy of the court. While being the top of your class at a top 25 law school is an impressive achievement, it’s her time as a professor where we see just how qualified she is. Barrett’s students describe her as the quintessential professor. She demanded excellence from her students but in the same sense showed compassion towards them. All of her students knew she was very religious, but many have said that she never let that enter the classroom. Instead, Barrett demonstrated to her class the importance of impartiality in law. She encouraged her students to step outside of their ideological comfort zones and had them search for justice. Even if it was something they disagreed with previously. 

Some even more telling remarks about the type of constitutional scholar Barrett is come from her peers at Notre Dame. Trump cited letters he received from Notre Dame Law staff that spoke highly of Barrett.

“Despite our differences, we unanimously agree that our constitutional system depends upon an independent judiciary staffed by talented people devoted to the fair and impartial administration of the rule of law. And we unanimously agree that Amy is such a person,” the letters said. 

The law will always be a divisive topic that causes a passionate response from people. Of course, there are people at Notre Dame that unequivocally disagree with Barrett. However, even though there is a clear ideological divide between them, the conclusion is universal. Amy Coney Barrett is a brilliant scholar that is impartial in her interpretation of the rule of law – more importantly, she has a deep and sincere reverence for the Constitution and the ideals that it protects.

Even though a person is qualified for the Court, that does not mean they should be on it at this moment. I am a firm believer in keeping the Supreme Court as a non-partisan branch of the government. The addition of another Conservative judge would create a clear conservative majority (6-3) on the Court. More importantly, she would be replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was the most influential liberal judge on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg constantly fought for universal equality throughout the United States. She was arguably the most outspoken advocate for women’s rights that our country has ever seen. The two judges have opposite interpretations of many important constitutional issues. The addition of Barrett would have a monumental effect on the Supreme Court and the Constitution for our generation. 

There are many things that you could do but probably shouldn’t. Nominating Barrett at this moment is one of those things. She has every qualification necessary to be a Supreme Court Justice, but so did Merrick Garland. I believe that precedent is something that should be referred to whenever there are monumental issues like this. 

Only once has there been a vacancy this close to a presidential election. Abraham Lincoln did not fill the vacancy on the Court until after he won re-election. For a nominee that will have such a large impact, the American people should have a say. Their say should come on election day. The last thing that our country needs during a brutal pandemic and election cycle is another contentious Supreme Court confirmation.