When I heard the news that American icon and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died Sept. 18, my first thoughts revolved around the series of events that would follow her death and eventually bring about a replacement to the court. Throughout his term, the sitting President* Donald Trump has successfully filled two open Supreme Court seats.

Both Supreme Court fillings for Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh were controversial, but as the death of the notoriously liberal Justice Ginsberg set the stage for Trump’s third chance to stack the court, Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation process was anticipated to become the most divisive and grueling nomination yet. 

Unfortunately, it hasn’t been. 

Barrett came across as pleasant and collected during the hearings, which began Oct. 12. As someone who personally knew very little about the nominee, I was struck by how intelligent and knowledgeable she seemed. Barrett presented herself as remarkably civil, which isn’t hard to do with a naturally disarming Hoosier accent. Yet although Hoosiers, people who are from Indiana, pride themselves on their values, Amy Coney Barrett’s are still unclear.

She made the decision to follow Justice Elena Kagan’s lead from her 2010 confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court and not “grade precedent, or give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down.” This choice allowed her to dodge any questions relating to the potential revisiting of landmark precedent like Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges. Instead, Barrett stressed that like her mentor, former Justice Antonin Scalia, she would take an originalist perspective toward the Constitution and decide cases solely based on their merits. More importantly, she would not bring in her own personal viewpoints as a Catholic, pro-life, conservative judge, avoiding publicly contentious issues.

All in all, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee did a poor job trying to illustrate to the American people that Barrett would be unfit for the Supreme Court. Moreover, Barrett’s choice to remain mostly silent in response to any basic question on precedent or potential leanings in future cases presented her as a very intelligent, insightful and respectable woman with qualifications that are impossible for Democrats to discredit. 

Her silence was tactful. Either Barrett is the real deal and would act as a Justice free from partisanship basing, or the much more likely case: Barrett is hiding her true intentions in order to pass through the confirmation process with ease.

She could very well be laying low to rise the ladder, once at the top showering decisions that aim to reverse “the barbaric legacy” of Roe v. Wade. During the hearing, Barrett declined to acknowledge this issue as “super-precedent” like she did of Brown v. Board of Education. 

It’s obvious to me that Barrett isn’t as non-partisan as she presents herself, which makes me question why she is going through the trouble of appearing neutral at all. In a political climate filled with constant outrageous controversy and gaffes, when was a Supreme Court confirmation process – happening less than a month before a presidential election – so normal?

Amy Coney Barrett is acting like the perfect nominee because she knows just as well as everyone else that she shouldn’t be there. Even if she appears perfect, the very fact that she willingly allowed her confirmation process to occur at such a detrimental time in American politics is evidence enough that she will not be a neutral actor of the law. Don’t simp.

Columnist’s disclaimer: The asterisk after the word “president” is not a typo but rather a reference to Donald Trump’s impeachment and to differentiate him from an actual president, lest the word lose its meaning entirely.