One of my many thankless tasks is to criticize conservatives. In many regards, this work is more unpleasant than criticizing liberals. When I talk about people on the left, the blowback is predictable: liberals call me a partisan hack, while conservatives support me, or at least silent. But when I talk about people on the right, conservatives attack me as a turncoat, while liberals hold me up as a token to attack those they despite. Like I said, the task is thankless. At times, I feel like Cassandra: I saw troubles long ago, but others wouldn't listen. Now, they're listening.
With each passing day, Justice Barrett is demonstrating why she had no business being appointed to the Supreme Court. Indeed, she should have never been put on the "short list" before she decided a single case. And I'm not sure why she leapfrogged over so many other qualified candidates in Indiana for the Seventh Circuit seat. Justice Kavanaugh was described as the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in modern history. Justice Barrett, by that standard, would be the least qualified Supreme Court nominee in modern history. Everything is laid out here. If the goal was to give Chief Justice Roberts a wing-woman, mission accomplished.
There is a constant drumbeat urging Justice Thomas and Justice Alito to retire. I think those calls are unlikely to succeed for many reasons, but also they are misguided. Thomas and Alito are still making important jurisprudential contributions to the Court. By contrast, Justice Barrett is not. I struggle to count five Barrett opinions that are noteworthy. And when Barrett casts an important vote, her actual bottom line is murky. We saw this in the Trump immunity case, yesterday in San Francisco v. EPA, and in today's USAID ruling (more on that confusing case later). Justice Barrett tells us to read the opinion, but when we read what she writes, we are left confused.
