Notorious RBG’s possible US Supreme Court replacement faces four-day confirmation showdown

By on

Politically-charged process kicks off today

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Amy Coney Barrett via Wikimedia

Today, in a live broadcast, is the first day of perhaps the most intense job interview in legal when a 22-member Senate Judiciary Committee interrogates Judge Amy Coney Barrett, selected by Donald Trump to fill the seat at the US Supreme Court left vacant after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The stakes are high on Judge Barrett’s appointment: liberal Americans fear their top court, with already five conservatives to four liberals, will swing even further towards the Republicans with a six-three majority once Barrett, described by the American media as “uniformly conservative”, is on-boarded.

This matters on issues such as abortion, health care, the role of religion in schools. But there will also be decisions more up close and personal such as President Trump’s tax returns and the problem of whether they should be handed over to prosecutors; and if there were to be any challenges in the voting procedures of the imminent presidential election, those cases would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court.

No wonder then that the nomination is politically charged.

Part and parcel of the appointment process for the top spots in the US judicial hierarchy, these confirmation hearings have become notoriously hostile and partisan. As recently as 2018, at the hearing of now Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the world was transfixed by the gripping witness evidence of allegations of sexual assault from Christine Blasey Ford followed by Kavanaugh’s defence.

Judge Barrett will have been hard at work preparing for the hearing ordeal with what are quaintly known as ‘murder boards’ where advisers will have fired questions at her during numerous practice sessions on matters of law and policy. She has already had to submit a CV that sets out almost every judicial decision she has ever made (and a justification for it) — Kavanaugh’s CV was 110 pages long.

The 2021 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

The US system is much more high profile than here in the UK partly because power rests with the President himself to put forward a name. This is true not only of the Supreme Court but also of appeal and district courts. (Indeed, Trump has made it a goal to nominate as many judges at every level as he can — the current tally is 217, according to the Brookings Institution). The partisanship starts much further down the judicial supply chain.

In the UK, there is a less prominent connection between law and politics with a separate selection commission for Supreme Court appointments, and a Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC) for other judges. The people who selected the most recent judge to join the Supreme Court, Lord Stephens, were: the current president of the Court, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and three non-lawyer members of the JAC.

And the tenure here in the UK has a cut-off retirement age of 70, whereas in the US it is a lifetime appointment. So once they are in, that’s it for a generation. Barrett is 48 which means she could be a serving supremo judge for almost the same period of time again.

The US court is also more high profile because it plays a far more overt role in interpreting laws in the light of the country’s written constitution. Though not everyone agrees that the UK system keeps law and politics apart as much as we like to think. Legal commentator and solicitor, David Allen Green, recently wrote in his Financial Times column (£): “Judges are often in effect lawmakers and policymakers, though they cloak it as ‘developing’ existing law.”

Judge Barrett’s nomination has been controversial from the very start for being pushed through before the presidential election on 3 November: when a vacancy came up during the election year for Barack Obama, there was a furore from the Republican ranks and the nomination process was postponed.

This week’s confirmation hearings will see hostile Democrats seek out chinks in Barrett’s armour, such as her religious views, that could undermine her nomination. They may deliberately quiz her on the most significant legal issues of the day but she will try her best not to answer or commit on those issues because if she does then she could be debarred from deciding those cases if they come before the court in the future. This piece of political theatre is how the hearings earned the description a ‘Kabuki dance’ by Joe Biden, current Democrat presidential candidate.

The show goes live today from 9am US time/2pm UK time in Washington DC. You can watch the confirmation hearings here.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter



Our judicial system is imperfect in many ways, but I will be forever grateful that we don’t have this palaver.



“This week’s confirmation hearings will see hostile Democrats seek out chinks in Barrett’s armour, such as her religious views, that could undermine her nomination.”

Nice anti-Catholic bigotry on display here.



If her views are so entrenched in her being that she’s unable to keep them separate then it’s absolutely relevant.



Would you assume an atheist’s views were so intense they would not be able to keep them seperate? It’s a political process in the USA, you’re allowed to admit that you don’t want her because you don’t like her belief and assume Catholics are more likely to be driven by them.


US Firm 1PQE

“No wonder then that the nomination is politically charged.”

Hopefully not as ugly as the Kavanaugh nomination. Her whole judicial philosophy shows that she is not a policy maker and does not to be one. Personally disagree with Barrett and Scalia on most of issues but, as a lawyer, do not see any flaws in their originalism theory – the laws should be interpreted as they were written and the judges should not be policy makers.



The nomination is a shoo-in. Too much work has gone on behind the scenes to guarantee that Coney-Barrett is untouchable.


Just a little bit sorry

She do be kinda hot doe


Comments are closed.

Related Stories