Word: The discriminatory rulings of Judge Barrett

 Nathan Robinson, Guardian - Barrett’s rulings on the seventh circuit court of appeals show her to be someone who cares little about justice, and who doesn’t particularly value the interests of workers, immigrants and the poor. In case after case, she has found procedural technicalities to justify depriving people of their basic rights, and it’s clear that on some of the most important issues of our time, she would swing the supreme court in a direction nobody should want to see it go.

Take policing. This year saw the eruption of massive Black Lives Matter protests all over the country as a reaction to police violence, with the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor outraging millions of people. But as a judge, Barrett has shown little interest in rectifying racial injustice. In the case of Torry, et al v City of Chicago, et al, she concluded that officers were reasonable in stopping and harassing a group of Black men even though there was absolutely no evidence that they had committed a crime. In Biegert v Molitor, et al, Barrett sided with police who shot a mentally ill man to death after his mother had called 911. In United States v Wilson, Barrett concurred with a decision that officers had reasonable suspicion to use force to detain a Black man when he ran away from them, because he had a “bulge in his pocket” and was in a “high-crime area”, in part because a “reasonable officer could infer from Wilson’s flight that Wilson knew he was in violation of the law”. And in Sims v Hyatte, Barrett indicated that she would have kept a Black man in prison who had been convicted on the basis of incredibly dubious eyewitness testimony.

Barrett’s attitude has been the same on other issues. On immigration, she has indicated that she would defer to the executive branch’s absurd reasons for denying visas to lawful immigrants, without requiring the Trump administration to justify its decisions. She has ruled against prisoners, workers, debtors, and consumers, and there is reason to believe she would rule against the Affordable Care Act if the issue came before her.