Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Dear Senator,
We call on you to honor your oath of office and defend the lives and fundamental rights of
all Americans by rejecting the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Senators and attorneys have a common duty; we both swear an oath to defend the United States
Constitution. That oath, along with our deep commitment to preserving the rule of law and core
tenets of our democracy, compels us to strongly urge you to vote against the confirmation of
Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
As 6,056 members of the legal profession—including 5576 lawyers, 14 judges, 163 professors,
and 303 law students—we have devoted our careers to a justice system committed to “Equal
Justice Under Law.” We have fought to protect critical constitutional rights and legal
protections, including for our democracy, for women, persons of color, persons with disabilities,
LGBTQ Americans, immigrants, workers, consumers, and clean air and water. The next
Supreme Court Justice will rule on issues concerning the rights of our clients, the rule of law,
and for the well-being of every American for decades. That is why we so strongly oppose Judge
Barrett’s confirmation. Examining her record, it seems clear that, if confirmed, she will vote to
turn back the clock on scores of essential rights and protections in this country that are crucial to
the lives of our clients and fellow Americans.
Amidst a global pandemic, the Senate should be prioritizing addressing the health and economic
needs of the country, instead of rushing to confirm a nominee who has criticized the ruling
upholding the Affordable Care Act and the health care protections we need now more than ever.
1) The Senate must not confirm Judge Barrett as part of an illegitimate, sham process.
The Constitution requires that the Senate give advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees.
This is not a meaningless rule that the Senate can disregard without doing profound damage to
our democracy. Congress and the American people need time to review a nominee’s record and
determine their fitness for a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court.
At the outset, we are outraged that Senate leadership seems committed to an expedited, sham
process to confirm Barrett. Americans have already started voting—you must respect their
decision. If the Senate confirms any candidate under these circumstances, it will cause
irreparable damage to the public’s faith in the Supreme Court and the rule of law. This alone
should be enough for any Senator to oppose any nomination, including Judge Barrett’s, until the
next Congressional term.
October 9, 2020
Page 2 of 394
2) Judge Barrett’s record also shows that the lives of millions of Americans are at stake.
At the time of drafting, over 217,000 Americans have died of the COVID-19 pandemic, with
roughly 3,000 people dying—the number of people who died in the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks—every four days.1 Millions of Americans are out of work. Schools and businesses are
closed. This is a national health and economic crisis that demands immediate action.
If the Senate instead chooses to confirm Judge Barrett, it will make matters worse. The
Affordable Care Act protects 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions including the
seven million Americans who have tested positive for COVID-19, but Donald Trump has
promised that any judge he nominates will overturn the ACA.2 We are deeply troubled that
Judge Barrett has repeatedly argued that the Supreme Court should have done just that.3 This is
an urgent concern; the Supreme Court will consider whether to take away health care from
millions of Americans the week after the November election.4
To protect the lives of 133 million Americans during a pandemic, as well as the further erosion
of the public’s faith in the judiciary that would result in such a ruling, you must oppose Judge
Barrett’s nomination.
3) Judge Barrett’s record shows that the fundamental rights of hundreds of millions of
Americans are at stake.
Judge Barrett has an extreme ideology, and we have grave concerns that, if confirmed, she will
erode critical rights and legal protections for millions of Americans.
For example, since Roe v. Wade, women in the United States have had the constitutional right to
an abortion. But Donald Trump has made it clear that every judge he nominates will
automatically overturn Roe.5 Judge Barrett has repeatedly criticized Roe, and has made it clear
she does not believe a Supreme Court justice should follow precedent6 that is in conflict with her
understanding of the Constitution. Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will be devastating to
millions of women in this country.
1
COVID-19 Tracker & Interactive Charts, 1Point3Acres, https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/ (last accessed Oct.
9, 2020).
2
Donald Trump (@RealDonaldTrump), Twitter https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/614472830969880576;
Reed Ableson and Abby Goodnough, If the Supreme Court Ends Obamacare Here’s What It Would Mean, N.Y.
Times, https://www.nytimes.com/article/supreme-court-obamacare-case.html.
3
Amy Barrett, SCOTUS Upholds State Health Care Subsidies, On Point,
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2015/06/25/scotus-obamacare-upheld-john-roberts-antonin-scalia; Amy Coney
Barrett, Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty, Constitutional Commentary, 4,
http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/4.
4
John Commins, SCOTUS Schedules ACA Oral Arugments for Nov. 10, HealthLeaders,
https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/scotus-schedules-aca-oral-arguments-nov-10.
5
Sarah McCammon, What Justice Kennedy’s Retirement Means for Abortion Rights, NPR,
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/624319208/what-justice-kennedy-s-retirement-means-for-abortion-rights.
6
Christian Myers, Law professor reflects on landmark case, The Observer, https://ndsmcobserver.com/2013/01/law-
professor-reflects-on-landmark-case/; Amy Coney Barrett, Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L.
Rev. 1711, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/293.
October 9, 2020
Page 3 of 394
Indeed, as a judge on the Seventh Circuit, Barrett has a consistent record of eroding civil rights,
protections for workers, consumers, immigrants, and those in the criminal justice system.7 She is
on record disagreeing with a host of well-established rights, from marriage equality to Miranda
rights.8
It is a bedrock concept of our legal system and our democracy that fundamental rights must not
be subjected to the passing whims of politics.9 To protect the fundamental rights of all
Americans and to protect the integrity of our legal system, you must oppose Judge Coney
Barret’s nomination.
Again, we call on you to preserve the rule of law and protect the lives and rights of your
constituents by rejecting the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Ginsburg once said, “Someday there will be great people, great elected representatives
who will say, ‘Enough of this nonsense. Let’s be the kind of legislature the United States should
have.’”10 In her memory, make that day today. Honor your oaths of office and fulfill your
constitutionally mandated role of advice and consent. Protect the fundamental rights of your
constituents, as well as their access to healthcare during a pandemic. Reject the nomination of
Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Adam Fernandez, Vice President of
Policy and Strategic Engagement, Lawyers for Good Government, at Nominations@L4GG.org
or Keith Thirion, Director of Outreach, Alliance for Justice, at Keith.Thirion@afj.org.
Respectfully,
7
Report on Amy Coney Barrett Nominee for Supreme Court of the United States, AFJ,
https://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Barrett-Report-9.28.20.pdf.
8
Katelyn Burns, How Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court could affect LGBTQ rights, Vox,
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/9/26/21457343/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-lgbtq-rights;
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/656/.
9
West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943) (“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain
subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and
to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;
they depend on the outcome of no elections.”) available at
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441.
10
Ariane de Vogue, Ginsburg talks partisan rancor, Electoral College and kale, CNN,
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-electoral-college/index.html.
October 9, 2020
Page 4 of 394