Judge Barret doesn’t threaten Roe v. Wade. She threatens the future of all reform.

Judge Amy Comey Barrett will almost assuredly be confirmed, replacing the Supreme Court’s most liberal justice Ruth Beta Ginsburg with someone who could well be one of its most conservative. For many, there are justifiable worries that Barrett will create a 5–4 conservative majority able to finally overcome those moments when Chief Justice John Roberts, himself appointed by George W. Bush, decides to side with the liberal wing. With this 5–4 majority, Republicans will be able to sue their way to gutting abortion rights, gay marriage, and other liberal social justice wins of the past half-century.

I’m not quite so convinced it’ll go that way; Barrett may well act as a small ‘c’ conservative, meaning she’s unwilling to embrace change, which would include rolling back major precedent like Roe v. Wade. Yet in many ways, that’s worse — and we’ve got the history to help prove it.

The Four Horsemen of the New Deal

FDR’s court-packing scheme is increasingly well known as liberals float adding new seats as a means to offset the Trumpian influence on today’s court; what’s less well known is why FDR thought to pack the court. During the New Deal, four Supreme Court justices, Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter, emerged…