The passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a notable advocate for women’s rights, had significant implications for both the justice system and the vacant Supreme Court Justice seat. Following her passing, President Trump swiftly initiated the process of nominating a candidate to fill the vacancy. During the past week, Congress members dedicated four days to questioning President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court Justice seat, Amy Coney Barrett.

Here are the key insights gleaned from the 30+ hours of Amy Barrett’s confirmation hearings:

Starting with her background, Amy Coney Barrett is a 48-year-old mother with a legal education from Notre Dame Law School. She served as a professor of law at the same institution, and earlier in her career, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 1998. In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her to the advisory committee for federal rules of Appellate Procedure. In 2017, she was nominated by President Trump for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, a nomination that secured Senate confirmation with a vote of 55 to 43, including support from three Democratic Senators. Barrett, who is a mother of seven children (two of whom were adopted from Haiti, and one with Down syndrome), emphasized the significance of her family in her opening statement, noting, “Nothing is more important to me, and I’m very proud to have them behind me.”

During her opening statement, Judge Barrett underscored her commitment to a judge’s responsibility of interpreting the legal text as written, rather than imposing personal preferences. Quoting Justice Scalia, she expressed, “A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were.” This philosophy guided her responses throughout the hearings, including addressing concerns that her religious beliefs might influence her legal decisions. She reiterated her dedication to unbiased legal interpretations.

The hearings saw the Senate probing Judge Barrett on several contentious social issues such as healthcare, women’s reproductive rights, and same-sex marriage. However, Barrett refrained from explicitly disclosing her positions, focusing instead on her view that the role of the Judiciary is to interpret the law, not shape policy. She stated, “Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life.”

Barrett’s cautious responses can be understood within the context of established judicial conduct rules. The Model Code of Judicial Conduct and the Ginsburg Rule, named after the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both guide nominees in confirmation hearings. These rules emphasize the importance of impartiality and prevent nominees from indicating how they might rule on specific issues likely to come before the court.

During the confirmation hearings, Judge Barrett demonstrated her command of the proceedings by speaking without prepared notes throughout. Notably, if appointed, Barrett would be the only Supreme Court Justice without a Harvard or Yale law degree and would be the first Justice with school-age children.

In conclusion, the confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court Justice seat provided insights into her legal background, judicial philosophy, and approach to contentious issues. Her commitment to interpreting the law impartially, along with her responses aligned with established judicial conduct rules, contributed to the rigorous proceedings.