Watch Amy Coney Barrett argue in 2016 against replacing Supreme Court justices with those of opposite ideologies

Federal judge Amy Coney Barrett seemed to make a case against her own nomination back in 2016.

Barrett, a conservative, is reportedly Trump's top choice to replace the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week. The move would give the court a resounding conservative majority just weeks before the presidential election — something Barrett had a problem with four years ago.

When Justice Antonin Scalia died in early 2016, the Republican Senate steamrolled former President Barack Obama's nominee to replace him. The move left a vacancy on the court for more than a year until conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed. And to Barrett, a former clerk of Scalia's whose judicial philosophy looks a lot like his, it was the right thing to do.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

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.

Sign up

In a 2016 interview with CBS News, Barrett argued against replacing a justice during an election year if the Senate and president were of different political parties. That was especially true in Scalia's case, as replacing him, "the stanchest conservative justice on the court," with an Obama nominee could "dramatically flip the balance of power," Barrett continued.

Barrett's argument could also apply in 2020, as her confirmation to the court would leave just three nominees by Democratic presidents on the bench and secure a solid conservative majority.