When President Donald Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020 following the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, criticism of her came from both the left and the libertarian right. Liberals and progressives, along with some right-wing libertarians, saw Barrett — an admirer of the late Justice Antonin Scalia — as too socially conservative and were troubled by her involvement in the severe strict Christian group People of Praise. And in 2022, Barrett was among the five GOP-appointed justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling.

But in recent months, Barrett has been drawing her share of criticism from MAGA Republicans who believe that she isn't MAGA enough.

Far-right MAGA attorney and Trump ally Mike Davis attacked her as a "rattled law professor with her head up her a--." And MAGA conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer called Barrett a "DEI appointee."

But Never Trump conservative and veteran Washington Post columnist George Will, in his September 26 column, argues that if Barrett's style of "originalism" is offending ideologues, that means she's doing her job well.

"Although Barrett is preternaturally nice," Will writes, "she irritates some people. The reason she does makes her an exemplary justice. It is her fastidious acknowledgment that certainty and precision are often elusive when construing, as an originalist, the Constitution's text — 'due' process, 'unreasonable' searches, 'cruel and unusual' punishments, etc. — in modern contexts. Awareness of uncertainties justifies judicious restraint: The duty to construe texts does not empower judges to try to discover — or guess — the purposes or intentions of those who wrote the words."

The conservative columnist and ex-Republican continues, "To put the point less gently than Barrett might: Some people with mind-closing jurisprudential orthodoxies are exasperated by the tentativeness inherent in originalism and textualism. Critics misperceive this as a lack of principled rigor. In judicial reasoning, however, the importance of living with the limited utility of principles is a principle."

Will stresses, however, that "Barrett's originalism is not so tightly tethered to the past that it cannot create rules implied by the Constitution's text, history and structure."

"Often, originalists resurface with differing conclusions," Will explains. "So, arguments continue. Get over it…. (President Abraham) Lincoln exemplified the painful patience sometimes demanded by what Barrett calls 'our constitutional culture.' Courts are secondary in maintaining this legacy of originalism. The public, inattentive and impatient, is primary."

George Will's full Washington Post column is available at this link (subscription required).

President Donald Trump is reportedly angry with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, his third appointee from his first term, frustrated that she has not reliably ruled in his favor on key cases. Reports of Trump’s year-long “ire” have emerged just as the Court prepares to release decisions in some of the term’s most consequential cases.

"The behind-closed-doors grievances have been wide-ranging, and while many have been about Barrett, Trump has also expressed frustration about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh," his other two SCOTUS appointees, CNN reported on Tuesday. "The president’s anger, sources said, has been fueled by allies on the right, who have told Trump privately that Barrett is 'weak' and that her rulings have not been in line with how she presented herself in an interview before Trump nominated her to the bench in 2020."

A senior administration official told CNN: “It’s not just one ruling. It’s been a few different events he’s complained about privately.”

READ MORE: Tulsi Gabbard Slated to Speak at Event Led by Activist Who’s Lost ‘Tolerance’ With Jews

Trump recently unleashed his anger on Leonard Leo, the former head of the Federalist Society, to which the President effectively outsourced most if not all of his first-term judicial nominations.

"As is his wont, Trump turned on his loyal servant with particular savagery, calling him a “sleaze bag” who had rendered bad advice on a series of judicial nominations," The New Republic reported. Trump also wrote that Leo is "a bad person, who in his own way, probably hates America.”

But Leo's SCOTUS picks were a windfall for the convicted-felon president.

"In terms of personal bounty for Trump, all joined the outlandish 2024 immunity opinion that continues to provide him comfort on a regular basis," TNR added.

Not all of Barrett's decisions have been as favorable to Trump. For example, Barrett voted against Trump’s $2 billion foreign aid freeze.

READ MORE: ‘Economic Ruination’: Trump Admits Tariffs Could Backfire, Fears Foreign Retaliation

CNN, meanwhile, notes that while Trump "has privately expressed his displeasure" with her, "a source close to Trump insists he does not want to attack her publicly."

Critics weighed in.

"Every reason to expect we will see some terrible judicial nominations over the next three years," warned Gregg Nunziata, an attorney, public policy professional, and veteran of the conservative legal movement.

"Funny split growing between Trump and the [Leonard] Leo/FedSoc wing of the party. ACB is in many ways his worst nightmare: ideological social conservative who doesn't believe the President is absolutely empowered to do crimes. Also, you know, a Woman who tells him 'no,'" wrote researcher Tyson Brody.

READ MORE: ‘I Have to Do This’: Dem Enters Race to Oust Ernst After ‘We’re All Going to Die’ Fallout

When liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020 and President Donald Trump succeeded in getting her replaced with Justice Amy Coney Barrett — a social conservative who considered the late Justice Antonin Scalia her judicial mentor — many liberals feared that Roe v. Wade was doomed. They were right: Barrett, in 2022, was among the justices who voted to overturn Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

But as conservative as Barrett is, she has turned out be more unpredictable than expected. Quite a few MAGA Republicans and Christian nationalists are claiming that she isn't far enough to the right, and reporting from the New York Times' Jodi Kantor reveals tensions between Barrett and other GOP appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Leaked documents, according to Kantor, show that Barrett, initially, didn't even want the High Court to hear the Dobbs case. But the other four justices pressed forward anyway, predicting that she would vote with them in overturning Roe — which she did.

READ MORE: Trump and the 2020 election: We're witnessing the rewriting of history in the making

"To many Americans," Kantor explains in an article published on June 15, "the conservative supermajority can look like a unified front reshaping the law through blunt force. Internally, the coalition is more fractured — six people debating how quickly to move, how far to go and whether public perception matters. Justice Barrett has favored a more deliberate approach than some of her colleagues."

The GOP-appointed justices Barrett has had the strongest disagreements with, according to Kantor, are Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

"As a junior justice," Kantor notes, "she is rarely assigned high-profile opinions. But she has defined herself through her concurrences, particularly ones that argue the other conservatives are going off track. Several times, she has told Justice Clarence Thomas that he leans too heavily on history in making decisions, including last year, when the Court rejected a lawyer’s attempt to trademark the phrase 'Trump Too Small.' Though Justice Barrett agreed with the outcome, she wrote that Justice Thomas' reasoning was faulty, in part because 'the historical record does not alone suffice' as a basis for the decision. She was drawing a line on how far originalism, the dominant method of interpretation on the legal right, could go."

Kantor continues, "The differences between Justices Barrett and Alito are deeper, say people who have worked with them, as well as outsiders who see them as foils in a debate over how to interpret and shape the law. Justice Alito, 75, is in a hurry to take advantage of the conservative dominance on the Court, barely disguising his annoyance at times when the other conservatives don't go along with him. Justice Barrett, who is likely to have a much longer future at the Court, measures every move."

READ MORE: 'I didn’t vote for this': Pro-Trump Appalachians are 'living on the edge'

Kantor discussed her reporting on Barrett during a Monday, June 15 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," describing her as the
"Republican appointee who has voted the most against President Trump."

Kantor told host Joe Scarborough, "She's kind of alone on the Supreme Court…. She really checked Justice Thomas in his views on originalism….. President Trump has complained about her in private."

In a June 16 post on X, formerly Twitter, Kantor highlighted some legal analysis of Barrett from Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, and Michael J. Nelson.

Kantor tweeted, "To everyone out there debating whether Justice Barrett is drifting left, please check out this analysis by Lee Epstein, @WashUChancellor and @mjnelson7 , which was vital to our reporting."

According to them, Barrett "is playing an increasingly central role on the Court" and "(mostly) isn’t Justice Scalia." And they noted that Barrett "is writing separately more often — especially in big cases."

READ MORE: 'We held our ground: CA health clinic describes close encounter with Trump's agents

Read Jodi Kantor's full New York Times article at this link (subscription required) and the Daily Beast's reporting here (subscription required).

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020 and President Donald Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a replacement, it was a definite game changer for the U.S. Supreme Court. Ginsburg was a liberal appointee of former President Bill Clinton, while Barrett is considered an "originalist" who was greatly influenced by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Moreover, Barrett doesn't have the libertarian leanings of former Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee who was right-wing in his judicial philosophy yet voted with Ginsburg and other High Court liberals on key issues involving gay rights and abortion rights. Very much a social conservative, Barrett was part of the 2022 majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization — which overturned Roe v. Wade after 49 years.

Yet in 2025, Barrett is being attacked as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) by many far-right MAGA Republicans. And journalist Jill Filipovic explains why she finds that troubling in an op-ed published by the Daily Beast on April 12.

READ MORE: 'Nothing to worry about': Brutal Fox News parody 'Foxsplains' Trump tariffs

"What is the job of the American judiciary?" Filipovic writes. "If you said to decide cases based on the law and the U.S. Constitution, you would be correct — unless you're playing by MAGA rules. Rabid supporters of Donald Trump, and the president himself, have a different view of what judges are for. In their opinion, judges should be loyalists, backing whatever the president does, no matter how unconstitutional. And they're putting us all in jeopardy. Judges who have ruled against Trump and his policies have come under MAGA fire, with some facing dire threats."

Filipovic continues, "The latest target — in fact, a perennial target — of this ire is Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who found herself in the crosshairs over a dissent objecting to the Trump Administration’s decision to implement an obscure and more than two-centuries-old law, intended for use in times of war, to deport migrants they claimed were gang members, without due process."

Filipovic notes some of the venom that is now being directed at Barrett. For example, MAGA Republican Tricia Flanagan said of Barrett, "Here's the simple truth that no one wants to admit — most women are not emotionally fit to be on the Supreme Court…. (because) women tend to be more emotionally vulnerable." And Laura Loomer described Barrett as a "DEI appointee."

"We're in a new political universe now, one in which the chief presumption is that white men are inherently qualified for their roles while women and racial minorities are presumptively not," Filipovic warns. "In some ways, this is very retro, harkening back to days when these groups were formally excluded from public office, many jobs and public participation writ large, and when various white male authority figures would opine on their lack of aptitude for these roles."

READ MORE: Ex-RNC chair slams Trump for telling Americans to 'be cool' while destroying economy

Filipovic continues, "But MAGA ideology is even worse: A person's professional and social fitness is determined solely by loyalty to a single strong man. Intelligence, credentials, experience, expertise, even the basic ability to function as a working adult? None of that matters."

READ MORE: Ex-Blackwater CEO’s new pitch for Trump 'could be a precursor to deporting US citizens'

Jill Filipovic's full Daily Beast op-ed is available at this link (subscription required).