But the lone voice who warned about Amy Coney Barrett in 2019? It was Human Events.
Take her freshest misstep: March 5, 2025. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Trump’s admin can’t block nearly $2 billion in USAID payments to foreign aid contractors—funds for work already done, sure, but cash Trump aimed to redirect under his America First agenda. Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s three liberals, forcing the money out the door despite Trump’s efforts to gut a bloated agency. The dissent—Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh—saw it for what it was: a judicial overreach trampling executive power. Barrett’s vote didn’t just defy Trump, who gave her the robe; it propped up a globalist system conservatives have long despised. That’s not a one-off—it’s a pattern.
Look at the smoking gun from January 2025. The Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump’s bid to delay sentencing in his New York felony case—34 counts tied to hush money and business records brought by openly Trump-hating Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. The 5-4 ruling forced the president-elect to face the music before Inauguration Day. Who sided with the court’s three liberals to make it happen? Barrett, alongside Chief Justice John Roberts. The conservative bloc—Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch—dissented, seeing the move for what it was: a partisan jab at Trump. Barrett’s vote didn’t just green-light a political hit job; it undermined the man who put her on the bench. That’s not loyalty to the Constitution—that’s a nod to the left’s lawfare playbook.
Then there’s the January 6 cases. In Fischer v. United States (2024), the court narrowed the scope of an obstruction law used against Capitol riot defendants. Barrett dissented again, siding with the liberals to keep prosecutors’ tools intact. She argued the majority’s reading was too restrictive—fair enough if you’re a law professor, but this was a real-world win for the DOJ’s witch hunt against Trump supporters. Contrast that with her concurrence in Trump v. Anderson (2024), where she refused to join the majority’s full reasoning on keeping Trump off Colorado’s ballot, aligning partly with the liberals’ narrower take. She scolded both sides for turning up the “national temperature,” but her waffling diluted a clear conservative victory.
Even on social media censorship—a core fight for free speech—Barrett faltered. In Murthy v. Missouri (2024), she wrote the majority opinion dismissing claims that Biden’s administration pressured Big Tech to silence conservatives. She nitpicked the plaintiffs’ evidence, handing a win to the censorship-industrial complex. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented, furious at her timidity. This wasn’t Scalia-style grit; it was a cautious sidestep that let the left off the hook.
Don’t get me wrong—ending Roe was huge. Barrett’s vote there delivered a generational shift, and returned abortion to the states where it belongs. But conservatism isn’t a one-issue movement. We need justices who’ll fight for gun rights, free speech, limited government, and protection from the deep state—not just nod along when it’s safe. Barrett’s pattern of siding with liberals in clutch moments shows she’s not that justice. She’s no radical leftist, but her “principled caution” too often translates to compromise with the wrong side.
