Amy Coney Barrett Nomination & Democrats: The Liberal Case for Confirming

When Senate Democrats began to participate in Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings on Monday, the Affordable Care Act was front and center. According to Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Barrett “has signaled in the judicial equivalent of all caps that she believes the Affordable Care Act must go.” In earlier comments, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer argued she would “vote to eliminate health care for millions.” And although Senate Democrats have been more guarded in their language, Democratic activists haven’t held back in describing her as an arch-conservative. (Per Occupy Democrats, a popular Facebook page, she is a “far-right Handmaid’s Tale wacko.”)

As a Democrat, however, I want to make the unexplored liberal case for her confirmation. Is she a progressive in the traditional sense of the word? No. Are there good liberal reasons for supporting her nomination? Absolutely. One can accept these reasons, even while acknowledging Republican hypocrisy on this issue. (Merrick Garland shouldn’t have been denied a hearing, and as Democrats we shouldn’t fight fire with fire by doing the same.)

XB

About the Author

Xavier Bisits

Xavier Bisits is a board member of Democrats for Life of America. He is based in Washington, D.C.

Featured Tags

When Senate Democrats began to participate in Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings on Monday, the Affordable Care Act was front and center. According to Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Barrett “has signaled in the judicial equivalent of all caps that she believes the Affordable Care Act must go.” In earlier comments, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer argued she would “vote to eliminate health care for millions.” And although Senate Democrats have been more guarded in their language, Democratic activists haven’t held back in describing her as an arch-conservative. (Per Occupy Democrats, a popular Facebook page, she is a “far-right Handmaid’s Tale wacko.”)

As a Democrat, however, I want to make the unexplored liberal case for her confirmation. Is she a progressive in the traditional sense of the word? No. Are there good liberal reasons for supporting her nomination? Absolutely. One can accept these reasons, even while acknowledging Republican hypocrisy on this issue. (Merrick Garland shouldn’t have been denied a hearing, and as Democrats we shouldn’t fight fire with fire by doing the same.)