Casting aside the painfully obvious fact that the Republicans are MASSIVE hypocrites for rushing through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, there is one other aspect of her nomination that I don’t feel is getting enough attention: Her lack of judicial experience.
Barrett spent two years as a judicial clerk from 1997-99 after graduating from Notre Dame (JD), most notably clerking for Antonin Scalia during his time on the U.S. Supreme Court. Until her appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017, Barrett spent her time as a private attorney or as a law professor.
In truth, most of her time has been spent as professor at Notre Dame, where she taught from 2002 until her appointment to the Seventh Circuit in 2017. The closest Barrett came to being a judge during her time at Notre Dame was when Chief Justice Roberts appointed her to serve on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. But that isn’t the same thing as being a judge.
From my vantage point at least, having just three years of experience as a judge isn’t very long for a Supreme Court nominee. Being a judicial clerk isn’t nothing, especially when you are clerking for a Supreme Court judge, but even in then, that’s not the same thing as being a judge. You’re more in an advisory type of role, similar to the role Roberts appointed her to.
Am I missing something or should Amy Coney Barrett’s lack of judicial experience be more of a focal point during these hearings? The Politico article I’ve attached below is the only thing I could find that addresses this angle at all. Curious to get some thoughts on this. And if anyone has experience in law, your perspective would be especially welcomed.
