Analysis | The many shades of Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Amy Coney Barrett was peppered with policy questions during the Supreme Court confirmation hearing, yet rarely indicated how she might vote in future cases. Photos taken from NBC and ABC

A trend emerged during the Oct. 12 to Oct. 15 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett: the color of her wardrobe each day seemingly matched her demonstrated presentation style to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

The connection between one’s attire and prowess as a political figure is certainly a strange one. Yet, for college students without the means or desire to watch the entirety of hearings, a quick analysis of Barrett’s color scheme offers a rough idea of each day’s proceedings. Here’s a more detailed guide. All information, unless otherwise hyperlinked, is accredited to The New York Times. 

Day One, Monday: Magenta

Barrett wore a magenta dress that loudly announced her presence in the room. It contrasted the noise of navy and black formal suits and dresses, as senators went to battle over her candidacy for a Supreme Court seat. 

Democrats like Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and California Sen. Kamala Harris attacked the possibility that Barrett could swing a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would leave millions of families without insurance. Republicans like Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, meanwhile, shot back by lauding Barrett’s credentials and accusing Democrats of a “crusade to tarnish a nominee” by painting Barrett as “a cartoon version of a religious radical,” despite few on the opposing side bringing up her Roman Catholic faith. Not much, ultimately, was accomplished in this particular round of statements.

“Huge parts of what we’re doing in this hearing would be really confusing to eighth graders if civics classes across the country tuned into this hearing and tried to figure out what we’re here to do,” said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE). 

Day Two, Tuesday: Ruby

Barrett’s choice of attire – a dull ruby-red – spoke to her muted answers toward questions about her positions on divided issues. 

Barrett adhered to what’s known as the “Ginsburg rule,” a standard put forth by former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her 1993 hearing to not respond to questions concerning topics potentially involved in future Supreme Court cases. Despite prodding from both Democratic and Republican senators, Barrett rarely gave hints to her positions on hotly-debated issues such as Roe v. Wade or the Affordable Care Act.

Barrett was praised by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) for her expressed condemnation of white supremacy, but was criticized by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) for using the term “sexual preference” rather than “sexual orientation” to assert she wouldn’t discriminate against the LGBTQIA+ community. Despite her describing racism and homophobia as “abhorrent,” Barrett wouldn’t go into further detail about her specific views.

While Barrett also dodged a question posed by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) if she’d recuse herself from any election-related cases, she made one thing clear. 

“I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think I would allow myself to be used as a pawn in the election for the American people,” Barrett said. 

Day Three, Wednesday: Glitter

It was difficult to make out the material on the purple jacket Barrett was wearing – appearing almost like glitter – just as it was difficult to make anything out of responses she gave to senators’ questioning.

Barrett simply could not be tied down Oct. 14, continuing a trend from the previous day’s cross-examination. Repeatedly, Democratic senators tried to pry with creative lines of questioning as to her positions on climate change, the Affordable Care Act and the potential for President Donald Trump to pardon himself from crimes.

Booker pressed Barrett on the morality of border separation, asking her whether she believed it was wrong to separate a child from their family.

“Well, Senator Booker, I think you’re trying to engage me on the administration’s border separation policies and I can’t express a view on that,” Barrett said. “I’m not expressing assent or dissent with the morality of that position; I just can’t be drawn into a debate.”

She didn’t emerge unscathed, however; Barrett appeared to forget that the right to protest was protected by the First Amendment.

Day Four, Thursday: Absence

Barrett was not present at the final day of hearings Oct. 15, during which the committee listened to witnesses testify for and against Barrett’s candidacy. 

The main point of controversy on the final day came as the Senate Judiciary Committee pushed through a motion to schedule an Oct. 22 vote on Barrett’s nomination, despite ignoring rules that two members of the minority party needed to be available. At the time, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin was the only Democratic senator physically present.

“This process is a caricature of illegitimacy,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). “The fact that we had a nominee before Justice Ginsburg was even buried in order to jam this nomination through before the election – that’s a mark on the United States Senate. It will be a mark of a process of callous political power grab.”

Republicans such as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, however, asserted they had the right to proceed.

“I recognize that our Democratic friends wish there was a Democratic majority in the Senate,” Cruz said. “But the voters decided otherwise, and so this committee moving forward is consistent with over 200 years of history and precedent.” 

Thus, a vote on Barrett’s confirmation will be held Oct. 22, which according to USA Today is likely to pass in a 12-10 party-line outcome. In that case, the American people may soon be observing Barrett’s choice of attire from her seat on the Supreme Court.