Amy Coney Barrett’s Decisions Are A Threat To Big, Unaccountable Government

COMMENTARY Courts

Amy Coney Barrett’s Decisions Are A Threat To Big, Unaccountable Government

Oct 12th, 2020 1 min read
COMMENTARY BY
Paul J. Larkin Jr.

Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow

Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government
udge Amy Coney Barrett at the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2020. Pool / Pool / Getty Images

Key Takeaways

A criticism of the administrative state is that it consists of unelected officials with the power to govern modern life without oversight by federal courts.

The opinions Barrett wrote are reasoned analyses of the relevant statutory provisions, the applicable case law, and aspects of the administrative record.

None of these cases suggest Barrett reflexively votes for or against the government or a private party.

The executive branch of George Washington’s presidency was but a pale image of what we have today. The 91 members of the first Congress outnumbered the executive branch officials empowered to implement congressional acts and presidential orders. Since Congress chartered the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, however, the number, reach, and power of executive officials have grown exponentially, creating our contemporary Leviathan administrative state.

A major criticism of the administrative state is that it consists of unelected officials with the power to govern virtually every aspect of modern life without serious oversight by the federal courts. That issue might arise during the upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the current opening on the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can read the full article on The Federalist.

This piece originally appeared in the Federalist