(PatriotWise.com)- The spotlight on Justice Amy Coney Barrett is not likely to fade anytime soon, just because she’s officially been appointed to the Supreme Court. There are some contentious cases coming to the high court soon, or that the court may decide to hear.
Democrats are arguing that Barrett should recuse herself from some of these cases, as she could be biased based on how President Donald Trump pushed through her nomination to the high court. Liberals argue that Trump created an “appearance of bias” since he connected Barrett’s nomination with court battles that could arises after the election.
Trump urged the Senate to confirm Barrett as quickly as possible so that the Supreme Court could have a full nine justices on board to decide any post-election disputes that may arise.
Democrats are pointing to a Supreme Court case from 2009 that involved a state judge receiving $3 million in donations from a coal baron in West Virginia to get elected. That judge then casted a deciding vote that protected the donor’s company from a judgment that could have costed it $50 million.
The Supreme Court ruled that the judge was required to recuse himself by the Constitution. The court ruled a reasonable person would conclude that judge held bias based on an “appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness.”
Democrats are arguing that standard should be applied to Barrett in any case involving the election. While Barrett pledged during her confirmation hearing that she would faithfully and fully apply recusal law, that’s not enough for Democrats.
Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse wrote a column for the Washington Post that said:
“The issue is not whether Barrett has good intentions or is horribly biased; it’s whether a reasonable observer could reasonably question her participating in a dispute involving Trump’s reelection as a neutral arbiter of fact and law. This inherent conflict was evident from the start — but Trump gave away the game.”
The Supreme Court is currently hearing an emergency application that involves the mail-in ballot deadlines for North Carolina. This is one case where the Democrats believe that Barrett should be recusing herself — as well as any other case that involves the election.
The Supreme Court has recently heard two similar cases. In Wisconsin, they upheld a lower court ruling that blocked the state from accepting late-arriving mail-in ballots. In a Pennsylvania case, the Supreme Court had a 4-4 tie that allowed the state to accept ballots after Election Day. Barrett could have cast the deciding vote in that case.
Other cases that Barrett could be a part of in the near future include an abortion petition that’s been pending before the Supreme Court since August. The issue at hand is a law in Mississippi that bans abortions beyond 15 weeks, unless there is severe fetal abnormality.
In an abortion case from Louisiana over the summer, the Supreme Court upheld abortion rights, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote. He sided with liberals in that case. With Barrett on the court now, though, even if Roberts were to side with liberals, the conservatives would still have a path to win.