Analysis by WorldTribune Staff, March 6, 2025 Real World News
When it became apparent that Chief Justice John Roberts was no longer reliably in the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, Republicans did not panic. After all, they had five stalwart conservatives in Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Or did they?
On March 5, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Trump Administration can’t block nearly $2 billion in USAID payments to foreign aid contractors. Roberts and the court’s three liberals came down on the side of “forcing the money out the door despite Trump’s efforts to gut a bloated agency,” Human Events Editor Jack Posobiec noted.
Related: ‘I am stunned’: Supreme Court rules Trump Administration must pay out $2 billion from USAID, March 5, 2025
Dissenting were Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
That left Barrett to essentially break the tie. She came down on the side of the liberals.
“Barrett’s vote didn’t just defy Trump, who gave her the robe; it propped up a globalist system conservatives have long despised,” Posobiec wrote in a March 5 analysis.
When Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2020, “conservatives cheered,” Posobiec noted. “Here was a devout Catholic, a mother of seven, a supposed originalist in the mold of Antonin Scalia—Trump’s gift to the right, cemented just days before the election.”
Barrett’s vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022’s Dobbs decision “was a monumental win, no question,” Posobiec wrote. “Conservatives popped the champagne, toasted the fall of a half-century of judicial overreach, and thought we’d secured a reliable warrior for conservative values.”
Barrett’s track record since “has been a rollercoaster of disappointment, with too many stops on the liberal side of the tracks,” Posobiec continued.
In January, the top court rejected Trump’s bid to delay sentencing in his New York “hush money” case. It was a 5-4 ruling and Barrett, along with Roberts, sided with the court’s three liberals.
“The conservative bloc — Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch — dissented, seeing the move for what it was: a partisan jab at Trump. Barrett’s vote didn’t just green-light a political hit job; it undermined the man who put her on the bench. That’s not loyalty to the Constitution—that’s a nod to the left’s lawfare playbook,” Posobiec wrote.
In the 2024 J6 case, Fischer v. United States, the court narrowed the scope of an obstruction law used against J6 defendants. Barrett this time was in the minority, but still sided with the liberals to keep prosecutors’ tools intact.
“She argued the majority’s reading was too restrictive — fair enough if you’re a law professor, but this was a real-world win for the DOJ’s witch hunt against Trump supporters,” Posobiec noted. “Contrast that with her concurrence in Trump v. Anderson (2024), where she refused to join the majority’s full reasoning on keeping Trump off Colorado’s ballot, aligning partly with the liberals’ narrower take. She scolded both sides for turning up the ‘national temperature,’ but her waffling diluted a clear conservative victory.”
In the 2024 censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, Barrett, writing for the majority, dismissed claims that the Biden Administration pressured Big Tech to silence conservatives.
“She nitpicked the plaintiffs’ evidence, handing a win to the censorship-industrial complex,” Posobiec noted. “Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented, furious at her timidity. This wasn’t Scalia-style grit; it was a cautious sidestep that let the left off the hook.”
Barrett is not a “radical leftist, but her ‘principled caution’ too often translates to compromise with the wrong side,” Posobiec wrote.
“This isn’t just a critique — it’s a red alert for Republicans: stop playing DEI games with judicial picks, or we’ll keep getting burned.”
Timely: Defund Fake News
The American Free Press is Back!
Amy Coney Barrett called fatal embodiment of ‘Republican DEI’ added by Editor Two on
View all posts by Editor Two →