With a 52-48 vote, the Republican-led Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett’s justice nomination. She will join the Supreme Court, establishing a 6-3 Republican majority.

All Democratic senators opposed the vote, and one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, also opposed. All other Republicans were in favor.

Barrett was confirmed just 30 days after President Donald Trump announced her nomination, and she is the fifth woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Prior to this position, Barrett was a professor at the University of Notre Dame. Then, she was selected by Trump in 2017 to fill an appeals court opening.

Barrett also clerked for late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, and similarly to him, she is considered as an “originalist,” or a “textualist,” which is a philosophy that centers on the text of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ original intentions.

The originalist philosophy is not unheard of, nor is it inherently right or wrong. Regardless of how it is implemented, though, it will have an impact on the nation’s future. Barrett is only 48 years old; she will most likely serve on the court for decades, influencing decisions across generations.

Barrett is also a devout Catholic, which is also not an unheard of trait or belief system for justices to have. Including her, six of the justices are Catholic, joined by two Jewish judges and one Episcopalian judge. Similarly to political views, justices are allowed to subscribe to whatever faith system they wish, including not following a religion, but they still need to judge impartially.

The potential length of Barrett’s career and her political and religious views, in part with the court’s current conservative majority, raise expectations, questions and concerns for what decisions the country should anticipate.

What opinions will result from her time on the court? What is the likelihood that Barrett’s stance and her new position on the court could change past rulings?

Barrett will not vote on cases that have been presented prior to her being sworn in.

Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Her first major case will be California v. Texas. The case, previously known as Texas v. U.S., made its way through the lower courts in 2018, and in December 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals “affirmed the trial court’s decision that the individual mandate is no longer constitutional because the associated financial penalty no longer ‘produces at least some revenue’ for the federal government.”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial courts to reevaluate the ACA’s overall constitutionality. In March 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. If the Supreme Court deems the individual mandate unconstitutional, it could potentially lead to the breakdown of the ACA as a whole.

Eighteen states, including Texas, challenge the ACA’s minimum essential coverage provision (the individual mandate). The Trump administration backs Texas in challenging the individual mandate’s constitutionality.

Seventeen states, led by California, are defending its position in the national healthcare system. Four states support ACA on appeal, and six states filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court also in support.

The ACA has been under fire since the start of Trump’s administration. Yet, the timing of California v. Texas is difficult as the country is in the midst of a pandemic. Any changes made could take time to enact or adjust, but even so, it is quite the undertaking as so much of the American population is in need of medical and health care support for COVID-19.

On Nov. 10, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the case.

Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. It was controversial then, and it is controversial now. Cases like it and opinions surrounding reproductive rights will always be a point of contention between conservatives and liberals. If reproductive rights weren’t a hot-button topic, they would not be one of the leading political discussions.

With Barrett’s nomination and confirmation, Roe v. Wade reenters center stage.

When the Supreme Court decides on a constitutional issue, that opinion is essentially final. Only with a new court ruling or the addition of a constitutional amendment can that decision be altered. It follows the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided,” meaning to respect precedent.

As a case, Roe v. Wade may not be directly overturned, but the presentation of current, similar cases could lead to opposing decisions, especially with a heavily conservative court. Future cases could “chip away” at the precedent established by Roe v. Wade.

In a talk at Jacksonville University in 2016, Barrett said, “I don’t think the core case, Roe’s core holding that women have a right to an abortion, I don’t think that would change.” Yet, Barrett goes on to imply that the regulations surrounding abortions and the restrictions placed on clinics could change.

Even if the question of abortion is not directly brought to the Supreme Court, other reproductive topics, like contraceptives and in vitro fertilization (IVF), could be on the docket. These are also highly contested and, with a right-leaning court, could be decided on if the proper case is presented.

Election Outcome

Trump and McConnell’s insistence on appointing Barrett serves two purposes.

To start, it is a sign of encouragement aimed at Republican voters. The Supreme Court now thoroughly leans to the conservative side, and this shift could inspire Republicans and on-the-fence voters to fully support Trump and his continued administration.

Conservatives may vote for Trump as a way of supporting Barrett’s nomination, especially if she is expected to judge with conservative ideals in mind. It is extra fuel for his campaign.

Secondly, the Supreme Court could play an important role in determining the election’s outcome.

The 2000 presidential race between former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Al Gore resulted in the Supreme Court’s intervention. The Bush v. Gore case reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to require a manual recount of votes. The race was extremely tight in the state, and with 25 electoral votes at stake, accuracy was key.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion ruled that the state’s court decision to recount votes violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The dissenting opinion argued the recounting process should continue due to the constitutional protections given to each voter and their respective vote.

Bush v. Gore is one example of how the Supreme Court could be involved with an election. For 2020, the court might be charged with determining the election’s legitimacy.

The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project has been tracking lawsuits that have arisen because of the election and COVID-19. Over 300 cases have been brought forth, most of which are still open. Of course, these may never end up at the Supreme Court, but it certainly showcases the concerns surrounding the election’s legitimacy. Questions remain about the United States Postal Service’s ability to count the excessive mail-in ballots.

All of this leads up to a potential call on the court. The justices would have to act as fairly and legally as possible, without partisan influence, but it is still important to note that three justices were selected by Trump.

The Supreme Court’s duty and power

Above all else, the Supreme Court serves individual rights. It is the job of the court and the chosen justices to assure rights granted by the Constitution. Decisions made are established on the foundation of a living Constitution.

The Constitution was intentionally written vaguely. The Founding Fathers left the document open to interpretation, particularly so that future generations could account for changing conditions. The Constitution is the law of the land. It should reflect the land it serves and rules.

Supreme Court justices swear to the Constitution, not the court. They must abide by and work within the confines of the law. Considering the ambiguity, their position requires interpretation, but as they serve individual rights in accordance with the Constitution, they cannot lead with their personal beliefs.

A highlight of the court should be its objectivity. Decisions should be formed entirely on the Constitution’s word. Of course, though, justices are human. They are appointed for their political leanings and beliefs, and it is impossible to entirely eliminate one’s beliefs, experiences, opinions and biases from decisions. It is these very things that frame one’s reading and interpretation of the Constitution.

Barrett has a history supporting the conservative side. She is strongly supported by the Republican party and is expected to act accordingly.

Yet, claiming to know the exact decisions Barrett will make is speculative.

In a speech after being sworn in at the White House on Oct. 26, Barrett said, “A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her.”

It’s her position to promote neutrality. Whether this objectivity remains or not is a different story.

Maddie Peters can be reached at pete9542@stthomas.edu.