PHOTO COURTESY PAUL JORGENSEN
Karina Rodriguez | THE RIDER
With the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, waves of support and criticism have poured into the political arena, and the UTRGV campus has seen various reactions to the news.
UTRGV professors and students weighed in on Barrett’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
Paul Jorgensen, UTRGV director of Environmental Studies, provided insight on how Barrett’s appointment happened. Prior to his position as director of Environmental Studies, he taught political science from Fall 2012 to Fall 2019.
“An opening on the court occurred,” Jorgensen said. “So, the Supreme Court has nine justices currently, and the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opened up a seat on the court. The president has a constitutional right but also does not need to nominate someone for that vacancy. The Senate decides whether or not to confirm that appointment.”
Jorgensen also explained the process Barrett went through in order to get confirmed.
“It’s been customary for the last 40 years or so for the Senate to hold public hearings on the nominee, and that happened this time as well,” he said. “The hearings occur within the Senate Judiciary Committee. So, that then becomes a three-day visual spectacle where the nominee is asked questions by the Democratic and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee.”
Jorgensen cited some of the abnormalities with Barrett’s appointment.
“First, the timeline was fast and furious,” he said. “So, that was not a normal timeline for how Supreme Court nominations and confirmations proceed. … The second reason was that the public hearings within the Senate Judiciary Committee were an extreme form of a really normal phenomenon. Right, so what I mean by that is, it’s been increasingly common that Supreme Court nominees and federal court nominees, in general, strive to be ambiguous in their answers to the senators. Now she took that to a whole new realm.”
Criminal justice senior Sean Gilbert said he is glad Barrett has been appointed.
“She’s willing to adapt the technologies we have now to the Constitution and allow, you know, freedom of speech to progress with the times,” Gilbert said. “The same thing with the Second Amendment, which is my biggest concern.”
Mass communication senior Andy Gutierrez said he is concerned about the possible jeopardy that the LGBTQ community could be in.
“As somebody who is part of the LGBTQ community, I feel like it’s going to affect my personal rights,” Gutierrez said. “When she got appointed, I was scared not only for, like, my rights, but I was scared for my peers’ rights. Not only that but, like, as a person of color, I feel like that it just keeps jeopardizing me and, like, the surrounding community, especially here in the [Rio Grande] Valley. It is just a little terrifying to think that we’re taking steps back instead of taking steps forward.”
Jorgensen also weighed in on what he believes Barrett’s appointment could mean for certain policies.
“You know, the issues that are highly polarizing like abortion and LGBTQ rights are very important, but it is not necessarily those issues that conservatives really care about,” he said.
Jorgensen said the true threat of Barrett’s appointment is moreso toward the environmental policies.
“Her answers on climate change are probably the most appalling,” he said. “But [Republican Sen.] … John Kennedy … he asked her two things. One, what is your opinion on climate science? Unbelievably, she said she would not commit to understanding the most basic claims of scientists. These basic claims have been around for generations, that the earth is warming due to human activity. And, [this] is going to have cascading effects on other parts of our global ecosystem that then will exacerbate the climate change burden.”
Jorgensen said it is not good to predict how Barrett will side on Supreme Court cases but instead, keep an eye on the cases to come.
“So then, the initial fears of Justice Barrett being a part of reversing some of the victories of the left and progressive community in the past five or so years, even 10 years, will be realized, if they are realized, or not,” he said. “We’ll see it in the arguments on Nov. 10.”
