Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett has become a sort of enigma among avid Supreme Court observers.
After filling the vacancy left by deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in late 2020, many conservatives were hopeful that the former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia would offer a much-needed dose of originalism to the high court’s majority of Republican appointees. With Barrett joining Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and (on his good days) Neil Gorsuch, the prospects for decisions abiding by the Constitution as written would be far more likely, or so the conventional thinking went.
To her credit, Barrett has shown the potential do just that. During her time as a justice, the former Notre Dame law professor has been instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade and Chevron deference, upholding certain religious liberty protections, and several other high-profile matters that have come before the high court in recent years.
However, what continues to stump constitutionalists and Barrett hopefuls alike is the associate justice’s abject failure to consistently apply originalist doctrine in her rulings.
The latest example of this dynamic came on Wednesday, when Barrett signed on to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bondi v. Vanderstok. In its 7-2 ruling,