President Donald Trump has officially nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the role on the Supreme Court made vacant by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the patroness of the religion of progressivism. The Washington Post went so far as to lament Mrs. Barrett as a “disciple of Antonio Scalia,” which is high praise indeed for those of us still advocating for the resurrection of the rule of law to benefit the Historic American Nation.
To WaPo, being a “disciple of Scalia” is a vice; to us, it’s a virtue.
So where does Mrs. Barrett stand on the issue of most important to VDARE readers, immigration? Well, she only has a few rulings, but one of them is worthy of praise:
Barrett has two recent opinions regarding the issue of immigration. She authored the dissenting opinion in the case Cook County v. Wolf in June 2020. The 7th Circuit’s decision temporarily barred the Trump Administration from imposing new rules that would exclude potential immigrants from green cards if they were likely to require public assistance. Barrett’s dissenting opinion supported the Trump Administration’s action and argued that Cook County, Illinois’ definition of public charge was too narrow and was not supported by law. The 2nd Circuit Court subsequently lifted that ban in September 2020.
Before that, Barrett wrote the majority opinion in the 2019 case Yafai v. Pompeo. Barrett ruled that the wife of a U.S. citizen could not challenge the denial of her visa application by a consular officer, who suspected the wife of child smuggling.
Barrett’s time on the appellate court has been short, and subsequently does not have a long record of immigration decisions. That said, her two rulings indicate that she supports the legality of President Trump’s public charge ruling and the independence of consular officers to reject immigration petitions without obtrusive review from activists. While her nomination is far from guaranteed the frontrunner at this time has two rulings on immigration, one of which defended the new public charge rule, one of the Trump administration’s successful attempts to reform our country’s immigration system.
Mrs. Barrett has five biological children and two adopted children from Haiti. She is 48 years old and already attacked by Jeff Bezo’s owned-paper as a “disciple of Scalia.”
If she is truly prepared to be a judge in the similar vein to the late Scalia, positive things could happen for immigration patriots and the Historic American Nation.