Amy Coney Barrett Faces Ire of Some Trump Supporters After Recent Supreme Court Decisions

Recent decisions by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett have sparked a wave of criticism from some of President Donald Trump’s most vocal supporters. The ire stems primarily from Barrett’s alignment with the court’s liberal justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, in a ruling regarding payments to foreign aid organizations. This decision, seen as a betrayal by some, has led to accusations of disloyalty and raised questions about Barrett’s conservative credentials within certain circles.

The specific case that ignited the controversy involved an order requiring the Trump administration to compensate foreign aid organizations for work already completed for the government. While Chief Justice Roberts joined Barrett in siding with the liberal justices, the majority of the criticism has been directed towards Barrett, a Trump nominee.

Jack Posobiec, a senior editor at the conservative news and analysis site Human Events, labeled Barrett "a warning against the dangers of Republican DEI," insinuating that her nomination was motivated by diversity, equity, and inclusion considerations rather than strict adherence to conservative principles. Posobiec argued that Barrett’s vote not only defied Trump, who appointed her, but also supported a "globalist system" that conservatives have long opposed. He pointed to other instances, such as Barrett’s vote against Trump’s request to block sentencing in the New York hush-money case and her dissent in a decision that narrowed an obstruction charge related to the January 6th Capitol riot, as evidence of a consistent pattern.

Conservative activist Amy Kremer, an organizer of the pro-Trump rally that preceded the January 6th riot, expressed even stronger disapproval, calling Barrett "the biggest disappointment on the court." Kremer went so far as to express shame for having previously supported Barrett and urged Trump to defy the court’s decision.

Steve Bannon, a long-time Trump ally, added fuel to the fire by suggesting that Barrett had given Trump a disapproving look during a post-handshake encounter at Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress. Mike Davis, head of the conservative legal group Article III Project, echoed the sentiment that Barrett was not the best choice for the Supreme Court. Davis claimed that Trump selected Barrett primarily because he wanted to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat with a woman. While acknowledging Barrett’s qualifications as a former Notre Dame Law School professor, Davis criticized her lack of a substantial track record on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to demonstrate how she would rule on Supreme Court matters. Davis used harsh language to describe Barrett’s perceived lack of preparedness.

However, Barrett’s decisions also garnered support from conservatives outside the "MAGA" wing of the Republican Party. Charles C. W. Cooke, a senior editor at National Review, defended Barrett, describing her as a "terrific justice" and reminding critics of the proper role of the judiciary. While Cooke disagreed with Barrett’s decision in the foreign assistance ruling, he argued that it aligned with her "procedural preferences." Cooke explained that Barrett is generally more cautious about determining when someone can bring a challenge and when they can do so using emergency procedures. He also highlighted Barrett’s preference for deciding major cases only when the facts are well-established. Cooke emphasized that Barrett’s commitment to these principles would sometimes benefit the Republican Party and sometimes not, which, he argued, is the essence of an impartial judiciary.

Ed Whelan, a conservative lawyer and former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, defended Barrett by highlighting her consistent support for major conservative causes, including overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, ending race-conscious admissions at colleges, and overturning a precedent that had made it easier for the federal government to regulate the environment, public health, and workplace safety. Whelan expressed disbelief at those who failed to recognize Barrett’s contributions to these conservative victories.

Alyssa Farah Griffin, a former White House communications director during Trump’s administration, noted that the attacks on Barrett reflect a trend among some Trump supporters to label anyone perceived as disloyal as a Republican-in-name-only (RINO). Griffin expressed surprise that Barrett, of all people, was now being subjected to this label.

The controversy surrounding Justice Barrett highlights the deep divisions within the Republican Party and the evolving expectations of judicial nominees. While some prioritize unwavering loyalty to a particular political agenda, others emphasize the importance of judicial independence and adherence to established legal principles. The debate over Barrett’s decisions underscores the ongoing tension between these competing perspectives and raises questions about the future of judicial appointments in an increasingly polarized political landscape. The long-term impact of these divisions on the Supreme Court and the broader legal system remains to be seen. Furthermore, this incident underscores the complex relationship between political figures and the judiciary, and the inherent difficulty in predicting how a judge will rule once they are seated on the bench.