After another conservative nominee was confirmed by the Senate, the Supreme Court took a hard lurch to the right. But just how conservative is it with the newly added member? Justice Kavanaugh, although the victor of an intense political battle, is described as an equivalent of Merrick Garland, Former President Obama’s nominee in 2016. They both are strong proponents of precedent as a method of consistently applying the law, rather than forcing their own political opinions through decisions.  However, there’s still speculation about how the justice will vote; the consensus is that he will vote considerably more conservative. The fear of Kavanaugh overturning Roe v. Wade provoked most of the questions asked during his Senate hearings, but another one of President Trump’s potential nominees should concern it more; Amy Coney Barrett is a hard right-wing judge, relative to Kavanaugh, and her staunch conservative upbringing could be significantly more of a threat to the left than Justice Kavanaugh.

So, why consider a nominee whose chance of taking a seat at the bench has passed? It’s not an uncommon fear that Justice Ginsburg steps down, or passes while serving, and next in line is quite likely Judge Barrett. Replacing a woman with a woman ultimately looks good for the White House and for the Court. However, replacing hard-left with hard-right will be controversial. Politically and morally the country is divided on the upholding of Roe v. Wade, with a majority in favor of its upholding. Rather than finding a justice who prioritizes precedent over personal beliefs Trump found a potential nominee with threatening values for the pro-choice community.

Federal Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett made the nomination shortlist after only one year on the Federal Circuit. An Alumnus of Notre Dame Law, a law and economics fellow at George Washington University, and a clerk for the late Justice Scalia, Judge Barrett is nothing short of a viable candidate. Many of her papers made Law Review and are cited frequently, a testament to her intelligence and respected experience. Her passion for the judicial system led her back to her alma mater to teach constitutional law, federal courts, and more.

Judge Barrett’s professional record is consistently impressive, however her political and spiritual affiliations are well known by Congress and unnoticed by the public. As a young lawyer, Judge Barrett co-wrote a piece with catholic John Garvey of Notre Dame Law School. Catholic Judges in Capital Cases provides research to support the claim that Catholic judges’ values are morally compromised when faced with a case regarding the death penalty. A woman with an astute record publishing a theological piece in the early stages of her career can be dangerous. History takes note of those who cause societal unrest, test the status quo, and publicize seemingly radical ideas.

Judge Barrett stuck with and continues to stick to her conservative Catholic values when casting her legal opinions. As one of the younger Federal Circuit judges, it can be theorized that this gap could differentiate Judge Barrett from much older and experienced judges. The National Civil Liberties Association noted, when the published list of nominees was released, that Judge Barrett never commentated judicially on the regulatory law of the bureaucracy. The closest is an extract from her piece in the Cornell Law review. She explains her opinion on the powers not delegated to the Executive Branch; should Congress give certain powers to the president, it would detract from the benefit of having a large body of delegates to make policy decisions.

Judge Barrett believes Congress’ ability to share power should only occur in an emergency situation. Further, she believes the bureaucracy should be unable to hold any more power, regardless of Congress’s constitutional ability to allow it. Whether that’s for the reason of it being the people’s branch, or a personal reason, it could negatively affect how the court rules on cases regarding lawmaking. It’s been held that Article I Section 8 gives Congress “all other powers vested by this Constitution”.  To have a Supreme Court Justice, also given power by the Constitution, believe it shouldn’t be the case is a sign of a radical in the making. However, it can also mean a justice wants the power of the executive limited even further, rather than acquiring responsibility attributed to Congress’s inability to carry it out. Until Judge Barrett releases a formal opinion on administrative law, it’s difficult to say exactly what her impact could be if confirmed.

Judge Barrett’s conservative roots influence her professional work, so it’s plausible that Judge Barrett would instead interpret the law as written than what it should be, thus making the above concern less likely. However, it runs the risk of having a justice with a traditional and outdated method of thinking. Referring back to Catholic Judges in Capital Cases, written in 1998, Judge Barrett and Garvey come to the conclusion that recusing oneself, in order to not compromise personal morals, or cause public strife, remains the best option. Regardless of the conclusion, Judge Barrett believed in the prosecution and conviction of criminals, contextually defined as killers of the unborn and aged, according to Washington Post writer Ruth Marcus.

Fast forward twenty years and find Judge Barrett following the judicial trend of citing precedent above all else. Fortunately for the masses, Judge Barrett bases her opinions on the doctrine of stare decisis, such as Justices Kavanaugh and Sotomayor. The Court’s time passed for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, the real question of controversy is the source of funding, according to Judge Barrett. Rather than asserting a definitive opinion, Judge Barrett neither abandoned her morals nor stirred public fear. However, if Roe is overturned, the states regain control over its legality. There’s little evidence to prove the states would immediately outlaw a woman’s right to an abortion, yet some states already have a plan. Louisiana, among others, wants to fine centers providing the service, Wyoming remains central on the topic, and California would continue funding abortion services, according to BBC writer Amelia Butterly. Judge Barrett’s Supreme Court presence could ultimately determine how states vote for Congress people, in order to protect and guard the values of Roe v. Wade.

Yes, the judge is still young, yet the new wave of justices will come at some point, and it would be better to have someone advised and collaborated with by older and more experienced justices issuing decisions on national landmark cases. What Americans, and especially the Senate, need to look for is her voting trend in the Federal Circuit, dissenting opinions and on which cases, and compare these variables with that of the current Supreme Court Justices. In the case of Judge Barrett, people change and adopt newer more modernly informed opinions about the law. However, concerns arise when it comes time to make important decisions, and we won’t know for sure how detrimental, or helpful this possible court confirmation will be until it’s all said and done.