Who recalls the disarray back in the summer of 2018 when President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court? Smeared by scandals nonetheless, Kavanaugh came out victorious and was confirmed in October of 2018. It would seem things are coming back full circle in 2020.

A new spot as associate justice judge has opened up after the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The question is: Is it unpresidential for a president to appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year? The follow-up question to that answer; should Amy Coney Barrett get confirmed? In my judgment, she should.

In the interest of forming a well-educated opinion, it is crucial for the American people to truly grasp what the Supreme Court is and what role they play in government. Primarily, it is the highest court in the land and the final resort for those seeking justice. It also ensures that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Thirdly, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution.

Ultimately, it sets appropriate limits on government by guaranteeing that the popular majority cannot pass laws that harm and/or take advantage of unpopular minorities. Supreme Court Judges are not to be partisan but are indeed appointed by presidents and serve life terms.

Now, when judging if it is unpresidential for a president to appoint a Supreme Court Judge during an election year, the answer is a clear no. Current circumstances oddly resemble 2016 after the democratic party tried to put Merrick Garland in the Supreme Court when former Associate Justice Scalia passed away eight months before an election year.

In a recent interview with NBC News, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris was quoted saying “Joe and I have been very clear, let the American people decide who will fit that seat in the White House and then fill the seat in the U.S Supreme Court, anything less is contrary to the best principles about what we do in a democracy.”

However, this predicament is not new territory we are navigating. Throughout history, American presidents have nominated a total of 25 Supreme Court Justices, 21 of which have been appointed and confirmed during an election year, 2020 reigns no different.

Barrett is a woman whom the right-wing adores and the left-wing dreads. Those on the right view her as the utter flawless replacement for Ruth Ginsberg, a woman who embodies virtuous conservative notions. In contrast, left-wingers have qualms that Barret would bring to life a Handmaid’s Tale reality.

Democrats’ main concern is that conservative or originalist judges will impose their moral opinions onto the Constitution. Their primary focus being that Barrett would try to overturn both the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade.

However, there are studies to show that originalist or textualist judges seldom write dissents on issues they personally disagree on. We saw this with Justice Scalia in a handful of famous cases where he ruled on principles he didn’t agree with (e.g flag-burning case). He understood his job as a judiciary wasn’t to do personal bidding but instead to interpret the law.

The fact is, Barrett has yet to rule on anything particularly controversial. At most, she’s made statements in her law review articles about how originalism should be interpreted.

Barrett is a highly knowledgeable woman in law who serves on the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit. She has received bipartisan praise, worked in high academia and is a woman of strong faith. Barrett is also a wife and mother to seven children two of whom are adopted.

It is the diversity of thought that led the women’s suffrage movement. If not for conservative feminist icons like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, we would be discussing neither Ruth Ginsburg nor Amy Coney Barrett today.