Trump's Supreme Court nominees are showing their true colors
There can be no more doubts how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett feel about abortion rights


Donald Trump's three Supreme Court nominees are exactly who we thought they were.
Last week's 5-4 decision by the court to let Texas' new anti-abortion law go into effect passed with the support of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. That's not really a surprise. Trump spent the 2016 presidential campaign promising conservatives he would appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's clear now that he kept his promise. The former president even took credit for the ruling in excerpts from a TV interview released on Sunday.
"We do have a Supreme Court that's a lot different than it was before," he said.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Still, it's worth remembering that during their confirmation hearings, each justice — and, often, their supporters — danced around the question of how they might rule on the issue, giving noncommittal answers that sometimes sounded almost as though they accepted Roe as settled law.
Take Gorsuch. At his 2017 confirmation hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked if he accepted the precedent set by Roe. "That's the law of the land," Gorsuch said. "I accept the law of the land, senator, yes."
Kavanaugh gave a similarly vague response at his 2018 hearing. "As a general proposition, I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade," he told a Senate hearing.
Coney Barrett, at least, gave a slightly more candid answer, telling senators in her confirmation that she didn't consider Roe a "super-precedent" too settled for the court to overturn. Those cases "are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling," she said. "And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category."
Even then, Trump tried to muddy the waters a bit on Coney Barrett's behalf. At a September 2020 debate with then-candidate Joe Biden, he disputed Biden's claim that abortion rights were "on the ballot" with Coney Barrett's nomination still up in the air at that point. "You don't know what her views are," Trump said.
But Coney Barrett's views were really never in doubt — and neither, it seems, is the eventual fate of Roe. So why did Trump and his nominees spend so much energy pretending otherwise?
Nominees from both parties make a habit of being vague during their confirmation hearings, of course. Justice Elena Kagan, for example, offered a powerful dissent from the court's ruling last week, but she was fairly careful about offering opinions during her 2010 confirmation hearing. Like most nominees, she dodged questions by saying she shouldn't pre-judge cases that might come before the court. "I think that — in particular, that it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk about what I think about past cases — you know, to grade cases — because those cases themselves might again come before the court," she told senators.
One nominee who did get chatty with senators? Robert Bork, the arch-conservative who was nominated to the court by Ronald Reagan in 1987. "I am quite willing to discuss with you my judicial philosophy and the approach I take to deciding cases," he told senators, and most observers agree he was true to his word. His nomination failed. Since then, nominees have been a lot more careful about answering questions.
It is probably also the case, however, that Republicans want some plausible deniability when it comes to ending abortion rights in America. While the anti-abortion cause is popular among the conservatives who make up the GOP's base, it's less so among the electorate at large. This is even true in red states: Voters in South Dakota and Mississippi rejected referenda to ban abortions in 2006 and 2011, respectively. That probably explains why many Republicans — who have campaigned against abortion for most of the last 50 years — have all but gone silent on the cusp of their greatest triumph. Fox News barely mentioned the topic during its morning coverage last Thursday, while most GOP members of Texas' congressional delegation also ducked questions.
Neither Republicans, nor conservative justices, can dodge this issue for very much longer. If the Supreme Court guts Roe, voters on both sides will notice. There will be very specific ramifications — to state laws, to the lives and decisions of women — that won't be papered over with fuzzy statements. The time for being vague is over.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a writer with 30 years of newspaper and online journalism experience. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic and The Kansas City Star. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
5 weather-beaten cartoons about the Texas floods
Cartoons Artists take on funding cuts, politicizing tragedy, and more
-
What has the Dalai Lama achieved?
The Explainer Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader has just turned 90, and he has been clarifying his reincarnation plans
-
Europe's heatwave: the new front line of climate change
In the Spotlight How will the continent adapt to 'bearing the brunt of climate change'?
-
Trump uses tariffs to upend Brazil's domestic politics
IN THE SPOTLIGHT By slapping a 50% tariff on Brazil for its criminal investigation into Bolsonaro, the Trump administration is brazenly putting its fingers on the scales of a key foreign election
-
'Trump's authoritarian manipulation of language'
Instant Opinion Vienna has become a 'convenient target for populists' | Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Trump set to hit Canada with 35% tariffs
Speed Read The president accused Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney of failing to stop the cross-border flow of fentanyl
-
Could Trump really 'take over' American cities?
Today's Big Question Trump has proposed a federal takeover of New York City and Washington, D.C.
-
Trump threatens Brazil with 50% tariffs
Speed Read He accused Brazil's current president of leading a 'witch hunt' against far-right former leader Jair Bolsonaro
-
Is the Trump-Putin bromance over... again?
Today's Big Question The US president has admitted he's 'p*ssed off' with his opposite number
-
The Supreme Court and Congress have Planned Parenthood in their crosshairs
Talking Points Trump's budget bill and the court's ruling threaten abortion access
-
SCOTUS greenlights Trump's federal firings
speed read The Trump administration can conduct mass federal firings without Congress' permission, the Supreme Court ruled