Amy Coney Barrett's First Decision As a Justice Was a Wrong One

 

Barrett didn't have to participate in a prime-time political spectacle at the White House, just eight days before Election Day. But she did.
Oct. 27, 2020, 8:00 AM EDT
By Steve Benen

snip//

Last night, the former reality-show personality turned the dial to 11, hosting a prime-time spectacle at the White House. It was, for all intents and purposes, a campaign celebration, held for the cameras, just eight days before Election Day.

The merriment had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer: Barrett stood in the spotlight, on a White House balcony in front of the presidential seal, alongside Trump who beamed with pride before an applauding audience, which included Republican senators who spent last week pretending they have no idea how the far-right ideologue will rule on cases of lasting import.

Barrett was then ceremonially sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas -- arguably the high court's most reactionary conservative -- as if to drive home the point that the right had taken over the judiciary.

Barrett had a choice. She does not serve at the pleasure of the president. The Supreme Court's newest member could've told the White House, "No, I'm not comfortable with this. I'm not a trophy to be shown off during a re-election campaign." On the show last night, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) described the event as "the latest episode of the Trump reality-TV show, 'Re-Election Theater.'"

And therein lies the point: Barrett's first decision as a confirmed Supreme Court justice was to agree to participate in this political spectacle. She knew about the electoral context; she knew this prime-time program would give the appearance of a political victory party; and she chose to do this anyway.

CNN's Jake Tapper heard from a Republican consultant last night who said in reference to the White House show, "If I'm [Amy Coney Barrett], I don't go to this." The consultant added that it "looks bad."

Her apparent indifference to the damage all of this does to her credibility and the legitimacy of her institution speaks volumes about Barrett and the indefensible process that concluded with such a brazenly political coda.