Many conservatives and constitutional legal scholars were excited when Amy Coney Barrett was elevated to the Supreme Court nearly four years ago.
Having clerked for former Justice Antonin Scalia, the Catholic mother of seven seemed like the perfect fit to replace leftist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Speaking of her former boss, Barrett once said, “His judicial philosophy is mine too: A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”
Combined with her fairly solid track record while on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, these facts made it appear that Barrett’s jurisprudence would align with that of originalist Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In the years since joining the nation’s highest court, however, Barrett has produced a judicial record more akin to that of a moderate than a true originalist. In several high-profile cases, she’s abandoned originalism and sided with the court’s Democrat appointees in legislating from the bench — so much so that she’s now viewed as a swing vote on contentious matters before the court.
In Barrett, conservatives hoped they were getting another Thomas or Alito. What they got instead is a female version of Chief Justice John Roberts or Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Recent Cases
Finding cases documenting Barrett’s disappointing SCOTUS record doesn’t require much digging. Her abdication of originalist jurisprudence was very apparent during the high court’s 2023-2024 session.
Barrett authored the majority opinion in Murthy v.
