We need the right kind of criticism

Last week, Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan made a joint appearance before the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees. Among other requests, the Court is seeking a multi-million-dollar expansion of its personal security and protection program, arguing it was necessary given the intensity of violent threats justices have received.

Barrett’s testimony in particular drew viral attention across social media, as she emotionally recalled moments like the day she had to tell her son why she was bringing home a bulletproof vest. That was in the context of intensifying leftist threats around the 2022 Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v Wade. More recently, her home was “swatted” after a fake “shots fired” call, whose source remains unknown.

The response from some on the disaffected right has been harsh. In summary, if Barrett can’t stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. One large account said her “fear” made her unfit. Another juxtaposed her clip with archival footage of Clarence Thomas defiantly facing down threats around his almost-derailed 1991 confirmation. (Incidentally, at the time Thomas also spoke vulnerably about the toll the process had taken on his family.) Podcaster Tim Pool, though framing his commentary as sympathetic, voiced the popular conclusion that Barrett’s decisions are being compromised by fear of retaliation.

Barrett has most recently sparked ire to her right by ruling with the majority in SCOTUS’s decision to uphold birthright citizenship, striking down Trump’s executive order. U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., demanded Barrett be “removed from the bench.” Other reactions have radiated low-grade, knee-jerk hostility, from the claim that her appointment has been just as damaging as electing Biden to derogatory labels like “DEI hire” or “Amy Conehead Barrett.” Daily Wire pundit Matt Walsh posted a group photo of Barrett and other female justices with the caption that all SCOTUS’s worst justices have been women. In reply, Kirsten Waggoner offered a laundry list of the Court’s worst all-male decisions: Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell, NFIB v Sebelius (Obamacare), and Bostock, for starters.

It is one thing to disagree with the merits of a particular ruling, as indeed Barrett’s own fellow justices did in good faith. But the reactionary right does not criticize her out of a deep commitment to sound jurisprudence. These most recent attacks follow a pattern of aggression towards Barrett for “betraying” Trump whenever she dares to make a decision contradicting him (conveniently forgetting many other cases when she’s ruled in his favor, including immigration cases). Among other reactions to this summer’s decision about mail-in ballots, one site was slack-jawed that Barrett joined the majority after Trump “moved heaven and earth” to appoint her—as if the only proper response is an endless string of returned political favors. Trump himself furiously called her and Justice Neil Gorsuch “an embarrassment to their families” for opposing him on tariffs.

Megyn Kelly’s hostility to Barrett is coupled with admiration for how leftist justices reliably rule in lockstep. As National Review has neatly summarized, the message is clear: Judicial vacancies should be filled not by people devoted to the law, but by “mere party apparatchiks.” If you can’t beat the left, join them in shameless corruption.

To be sure, conservatives have often felt legitimate “buyer’s remorse” at how various Republican SCOTUS appointees have swung over to join a Democrat majority ruling. We should have learned long ago to manage expectations in this department, yet it is always a fresh disappointment when a Roberts or a Gorsuch lends their opinion to a truly flawed decision. But our disappointments should be motivated by the Court’s lack of fidelity to the law, not the mere fact that a ruling might cut against party interests.

People may disagree in good faith about the specifics of Barrett’s rulings. There is even room for thoughtful debate about whether SCOTUS is an arena better suited to men than to women, in light of the threats they must ignore to focus on their job. But capitalizing on Barrett’s  reasonable vulnerability in the face of leftist hostility to push rank MAGA cronyism is contemptible. It’s especially dispiriting to trace the arc of a pundit like Matt Walsh from his initial enthusiastic support of Barrett to his descent into that brand of cronyism. 

Let Barrett’s work stand or fall on its merits, but let a conservative case against her retain truly conservative qualities: a genuine pursuit of truth and impartial respect for the law. Finally, any respectable argument must include a most basic quality that is, sad to say, no longer a given on either side of this discourse—a measure of class.