Amy Coney Barrett will be asked to rule on election disputes and much more

EVERY APPOINTMENT to America’s Supreme Court ushers in “a new court”, observed Byron White, a justice who welcomed 15 new colleagues in his 31 years on the bench. But rarely does the arrival of a justice herald a transformation as dramatic as that promised by the confirmation on October 26th of Amy Coney Barrett, a deeply conservative judge, to take the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a hero of the progressive legal movement. This watershed moment recalls the rightward shift in 1991 when the arch-conservative Clarence Thomas succeeded a civil-rights icon, Thurgood Marshall. Like Justice Thomas, Justice Barrett could skew the ideological balance on the court for decades.

A mere 38 days after Ms Ginsburg’s death, Justice Barrett took up her seat amid an election tinged by resurgent coronavirus. The Senate voted to confirm her as Donald Trump’s third appointee to America’s highest court by 52-48—a tally mirroring America’s polarisation far outside the Senate chamber. Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh had bitter confirmations, too, but they each received crossover votes (three and one, respectively). Justice Barrett had no Democrats on her side and one Republican—Susan Collins of Maine—opposed her confirmation. With a 6-3 conservative majority, the court could dial back liberal victories won during the past few decades. Recent rulings on the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender people appear vulnerable, as are decades-old precedents protecting abortion rights. With a new colleague friendly to gun rights, Justice Thomas may have another partner for his mission to muscle up the Second Amendment.