How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left
President Trump appointed her to clinch a conservative legal revolution. But soon after arriving at the Supreme Court, she began surprising her colleagues.
*Justice Barrett, appointed to clinch a 50-year conservative legal revolution, is showing signs of leftward drift.
She has become the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority in decisions that reach a liberal outcome, according to a new analysis of her record prepared for The New York Times. Her influence measured by how often she is on the winning side is rising. Along with the chief justice, a frequent voting partner, Justice Barrett could be one of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president.'
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/15/us/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html

Skittles
(166,012 posts)she's a religious nutcase who isn't too keen on fascism
Mike Nelson
(10,658 posts)... be happier with President Vance. Of course, Trump has been good for the cause, but he's so obviously unholy.
LetMyPeopleVote
(166,328 posts)The Trump appointee wrote a concurrence in the Skrmetti case joined only by Thomas. Alito seems to agree with them, too.
Justice Amy Coney Barrettâs stance would further weaken #transgender rights.
— [The Great War & Modern Memory] (@ps9714.bsky.social) 2025-06-18T19:53:43.041Z
The Trump appointee wrote a concurrence in the #Skrmetti case joined only by #Thomas. #Alito seems to agree with them, too.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/transgender-rights-skrmetti-decision-barrett-rcna213740
Her explanation came in a concurring opinion to Chief Justice John Roberts majority ruling in United States v. Skrmetti. Justices sometimes write concurrences to add their own thoughts, even if those thoughts dont create binding legal opinions on their own. They can lay the groundwork for future majority rulings and influence lower courts in the meantime. And though the Trump appointees concurrence was only joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, if her reasoning is adopted by a majority of the court in the future, it could further weaken transgender rights.
Barrett noted that, while laws are presumed constitutional and are generally upheld so long as they bear a rational relation to a legitimate goal, there are exceptions to the general rule, such as for classifications based on race and sex. When those so-called suspect classes are at issue, the government faces a greater burden to show why its actions are constitutional. In the Skrmetti case, the majority said Tennessee didnt have to shoulder that greater burden because, the majority reasoned, the state law didnt classify people based on sex or transgender status.
Barrett listed multiple reasons why she thinks transgender people dont deserve this suspect class status. Among other things, she suggested that transgender people have not sufficiently faced a history of legal discrimination like people have faced based on race or sex......
So, while the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasnt the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward.
I know that some MAGA types are mad at Barrett for not rubberstamping rulings for trump. This ruling shows why the Federalist Society picked this very conservative asshole to be on the SCOTUS. She may not rubberstamp rulings for trump but she is still an asshole