Amy Coney Barrett and America's 3-3-3 SCOTUS
By Todd Gregory and Erik Gregory
web posted March 17, 2025
The forever mendacious media deliberately gaslight the American public whenever they refer to a 6-3 "conservative majority" (or supermajority) on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), implying Republicans enjoy dictatorial one-party rule on the Court.
It is true that six of the nine Justices were nominated by and confirmed under Republican presidents but it is a glaring misnomer to declare that conservatives have a 6-3 majority on the Court, let alone that the SCOTUS is far-right or rubber-stamping conservative legal priorities.
To illustrate, Justice Amy Coney Barrett probably didn't wear this contemptuous, disgusted expression on her face when she interviewed with Donald Trump for the SCOTUS judgeship back in 2020.
Coney Barrett is merely the latest Republican-confirmed letdown on the Court. There are no mulligans, no do-overs. The youthful Coney Barrett could remain on the bench for another half century, exerting a profound influence over the direction of public policy and American society. Somewhere, Dianne Feinstein is smiling.
There are precedents for Coney Barrett, of course. Indeed, in her four plus years on the Court, Coney Barrett is shaping up to be David Souter 2.0. It was Republican George H. W. Bush 41 who foisted the counterfeit conservative Souter onto the Court.
In yet another Bush classic, George W. Bush 43 bypassed highly qualified constitutional jurists like Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada in order to install the fickle John Roberts, a judge whose moistened index finger is always held up to the wind of public opinion (Bush 43 even elevated the neophyte Roberts to Chief Justice over vastly more accomplished sitting Justices like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia).
Even the sainted Ronald Reagan whiffed on two of his three SCOTUS appointments. Sandra Day O'Connor was a stealth liberal who voted to uphold the "constitutionality" of Affirmative Action (DEI's predecessor), even though she personally disagreed on both legal and moral grounds, believing affirmative action and racial quotas to be unconstitutional.
Former Justice Anthony Kennedy, the other Reagan misstep on the Court, relished his "independent" swing vote as it made him the constant center of attention and speculation – with all eyes on Anthony, which way would Anthony vote? And would the New York Times editorial board approve?
Anthony Kennedy's (perhaps hand-picked) successor on the Court and mini-me Brett Kavanaugh has also fallen short of expectations. Trump 45 nominated and then fought for Kavanaugh's confirmation in 2018 through patently ridiculous but well-coordinated Democrat attacks and baseless media conspiracy theories (rape trains, et al.).
Yet, the payoff hasn't been there as Kavanaugh has proven to be an underwhelming replicant of his changeling mentor, Kennedy.
And true to form, Roberts and Coney Barrett both voted with the Court's progressive wing to undermine Trump and DOGE, compelling billions of taxpayer dollars to be spent (money laundered through the DNC, stolen, grifted) by the shuttered and thoroughly discredited USAID federal agency.
Rather than being strict constitutional originalists or constructionists, perhaps the Roberts-Coney Barrett duo conceive of themselves as judicial mavericks and were persuaded or otherwise guided by unspecified "penumbras and emanations" with their USAID ruling?
The latest Coney Barrett and Roberts defections from the Constitution are a 2nd hand embarrassment to Trump, the Federalist Society, and others who unreservedly promoted the two Justices.
By contrast, ever notice how Democrat presidents never screw up their SCOTUS picks?
Bill Clinton put noxious left-wing ideologues Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the Notorious RBG) and Stephen Breyer onto the court.
The tag team of Barack Obama and Joe Biden managed to get self-described wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed to the SCOTUS with virtually no push-back from GOP senators. Those three progressive Justices can be counted on to vote their ideology over the law on each case before the court. All are upper deck grand slam home runs for the hard Left.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/71776486/AP853447231932b.0.jpg){kind=link}
Supreme Court Justices are not like cabinet heads or even presidents, here today and gone tomorrow, rising and then disappearing with each new administration. They are like supersized, near-permanent bureaucrats, unelected immovable objects arguably wielding more power than the other (supposedly) co-equal branches of government.
Any honest assessment of the first Trump administration (Trump 45) must acknowledge there were numerous personnel blunders (Omarosa? Scaramucci? Wray?), and recent Republican SCOTUS appointees have mostly disappointed. Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts are distressed assets today, and Coney Barrett appears to be a colossal, David Souter-level catastrophe.
Contra the psy-ops of the debunked news media, conservatives do not enjoy a 6-3 supermajority on the SCOTUS. With Thomas and Samuel Alito joined by the generally reliable Neil Gorsuch, the SCOTUS is (at most) a 3-3-3 Court.
If Trump 47 is fortunate enough to nominate another Justice for the SCOTUS, he needs to avoid the hireling fiascos of Trump 45. Trump's presidency and the nation cannot afford any more FUBAR personnel decisions when it comes to the SCOTUS. 
Erik Gregory and Todd Gregory are previous contributors to ESR.
