Attorney Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, has issued a strong warning to conservatives regarding recent criticism of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In his latest report, Smith argues that some members of the conservative movement are making a strategic error by attacking Barrett’s record. While acknowledging that no justice is perfect, he contends that Barrett has consistently ruled in favor of constitutional originalism, particularly in key Second Amendment cases.
Unjustified Criticism of Justice Barrett
Smith explains that while disagreements are natural in legal analysis, some conservatives have been too quick to dismiss Barrett as a failure. He believes this reaction is driven by misconceptions and impatience, particularly regarding cases that have been decided under the Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket” rather than full judicial review.
A Strong Conservative Judicial Record
To illustrate his point, Smith highlights Justice Barrett’s rulings on major cases since her appointment in 2020. He reminds viewers that Barrett was part of the majority that overturned Roe v. Wade, a landmark victory for constitutional conservatives. She also played a crucial role in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which reaffirmed Second Amendment protections and struck down restrictive gun permit laws.
Additionally, Barrett supported the decision to overturn the ATF’s bump stock ban, ruled against affirmative action in both public and private universities, and sided with former President Donald Trump in major legal battles, including the 14th Amendment ballot access case and presidential immunity rulings. According to Smith, these decisions alone should be enough to satisfy conservatives that Barrett is a reliable originalist and a strong constitutional judge.
The Shadow Docket Misunderstanding
One of the biggest areas of concern among Barrett’s critics, Smith explains, is her handling of emergency cases through the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket.” The shadow docket refers to decisions made without full briefing, oral arguments, and months of deliberation – often in response to urgent legal challenges.
Smith clarifies that Barrett comes from an academic background, where legal decisions are typically methodical and well-researched. Because of this, she may be more cautious about issuing sweeping rulings on emergency motions. However, Smith warns that these cautious decisions should not be mistaken for hostility toward conservative causes. He points to the bump stock ban as an example, where the Supreme Court initially refused to block the regulation in 2019 but later ruled against it in 2024.
The Left’s Attempt to Flip Barrett
A major concern Smith raises is how the left is actively working to court Barrett by portraying her as a potential swing vote. He cites an article from The New York Times, which described Barrett as “the most interesting justice” and suggested that she could emerge as the new deciding vote in critical cases.
Smith warns that liberals have successfully influenced past Republican-appointed justices, such as David Souter and John Paul Stevens, who eventually sided with the left on key issues. He argues that conservatives should be mindful not to push Barrett away with unfair criticism, as such attacks could unintentionally make her more receptive to the left’s efforts to sway her views over time.
A Misguided Conservative Backlash
Smith expresses frustration with some conservatives who have taken to social media to denounce Barrett as “the worst pick ever” and a “disaster” for originalism. He calls these claims “silly” and emphasizes that Barrett has been a solid vote for conservative legal principles in nearly every major case.
Instead of engaging in reactionary attacks, Smith suggests that conservatives should focus on supporting and reinforcing the justices who have consistently upheld the Constitution. While no judge will always rule exactly as expected, he argues that the overall record should be the guiding measure of a justice’s impact.
The Strategic Danger of Over-Criticism
From a strategic perspective, Smith believes that relentless criticism of Barrett is counterproductive for the conservative movement. He recalls how leftist media figures worked to elevate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor by celebrating her as an independent thinker, which eventually led her to shift toward more moderate and liberal positions.
Smith stresses that conservatives should not make the same mistake. He argues that it is important to critique legal decisions when necessary, but excessive personal attacks against a justice who has largely ruled in favor of conservative principles serve no useful purpose. Instead, conservatives should focus on ensuring that future justices continue to uphold originalist interpretations of the Constitution.
Barrett’s Long-Term Role on the Court
A crucial point Smith makes is that Barrett is likely to remain on the Supreme Court for the next 30 to 40 years. Whether conservatives like it or not, she will be a defining force in shaping American law for decades to come. He advises against alienating a justice who has been overwhelmingly supportive of conservative causes simply because of disagreements on certain procedural matters.
Smith warns that if Barrett begins to feel rejected by the conservative movement, the left will gladly welcome her into their ranks. He urges conservatives to be smart about how they engage with the judiciary, recognizing that long-term influence is far more important than short-term outrage.
Why Barrett Remains a Crucial Justice
According to Smith, Barrett’s record so far is a strong indicator that she will remain a crucial ally for constitutional conservatives. He emphasizes that her votes in cases involving gun rights, executive power, and judicial restraint all demonstrate a commitment to originalist principles. While no justice will be perfect, he argues that Barrett has consistently delivered on the most important legal battles.
Smith urges conservatives to take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. The Supreme Court plays a long game, and justices often take years to establish their full judicial philosophies. He believes that as Barrett continues to grow into her role, she will only become more valuable to the conservative movement.
A Call for Smarter Conservative Strategy
In his closing remarks, Smith calls on conservatives to be more strategic in how they approach judicial criticism. He acknowledges that debates over legal interpretations are necessary but cautions against allowing those debates to devolve into destructive infighting.
Rather than engaging in knee-jerk reactions, he encourages conservatives to support justices who have demonstrated a commitment to the Constitution. Smith firmly believes that attacking Barrett is not only unnecessary but potentially harmful to the future of the conservative legal movement.
A Justice Worth Defending
At the end of the day, Smith’s argument is clear – Justice Barrett has been a reliable and principled originalist, and attacking her without cause is a mistake. While disagreements will always exist, he stresses that conservatives must be careful not to undermine one of their strongest judicial allies.
As the Supreme Court continues to hear major cases, Barrett’s role will remain pivotal. Conservatives who wish to see the Constitution upheld should recognize her contributions and avoid falling into the trap of self-sabotage. In Smith’s view, the conservative movement has much bigger battles to fight, and wasting energy attacking one of their own is not the way to win.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.