And for better or worse, there’s enough in Barrett’s record to paint her, fairly or unfairly, as not a huge fan of Roe. She is conservative, she is Catholic, and past written and spoken comments of hers can be construed, fairly or unfairly, as reflecting anti-abortion views. Indeed, some of her biggest fans support her precisely because they think or hope she might vote to overrule Roe. See, e.g., Ramesh Ponnuru: “If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned — as I certainly hope it will be, as it is an unjust decision with no plausible basis in the Constitution — it would be better if it were not done by only male justices.”
With Republicans having no margin for error — they hold a 50-49 advantage in the Senate, assuming Senator McCain cannot travel to D.C., and two of the 50 are moderate, pro-choice women (Collins and Murkowski) — they probably shouldn’t go with Barrett, at least this time around. Instead, it might be better to save her for the future — when she will have more judicial experience (she would be attacked today as “inexperienced”), when the Republicans have a bigger margin in the Senate, or when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg leaves the Court (because, as I suggested last week, “replacing a woman — and historic crusader for women’s rights — with a man, and probably a straight white man at that, isn’t a great look”).
Also, at 46, Barrett is the youngest of the finalists. Unlike some of the other nominees, she’s nowhere near 55, widely seen as the “sell-by” date for SCOTUS nominees (especially for Republicans, who prize youth in their judicial picks).
Join the conversation as a VIP Member