(FiveNation.com)- When contentious court verdicts are handed down, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett advised Americans to “read the opinion” and not presume the choices were purely political.
Barrett said judges were attempting to determine what the law and the Constitution required rather than deciding cases to impose a policy conclusion. Barrett made her remarks in a speech Monday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.
Barrett requested that you ask yourself if the decision appears to be merely results-driven and meant to impose the majority’s policy preferences, or does it appear to be an honest and convincing attempt to assess what the Constitution and precedent require? Is the reasoning sounding like a political body or a judicial body?
Barrett explained that criticizing a court’s ruling was “absolutely fair game,” but that if you feel that the court got it wrong, you have to analyze what the court’s reasoning was first.
A heckler interrupted Barrett as she was addressing how the media scrutinized her in 2018 when she was a contender to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“As a mother of seven, I am used to distractions and sometimes even outbursts,” quipped Barrett in response to the heckler’s outburst.
The Senate was expected to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson when Barrett was asked if she had any advice for a new judge.
She said one of the most challenging things she faced, which she wasn’t prepared for, was transitioning from being a public person to being a public figure. Security is considerably different than when she was clerking on the court. (Justice Antonin Scalia never had security.)
Of the nine judges, Barrett is the only one who did not attend Harvard or Yale, instead hailing from Notre Dame.
When asked if Supreme Court justices should be attorneys, which the Constitution does not require, Barrett said without being a lawyer and having some knowledge of the law, she found it implausible to serve successfully.
A George W. Bush nominee, Harriet Miers, was a lawyer with no expertise in litigating in federal court. She also didn’t attend an Ivy League university or a top law school and was quickly dismissed in the court of public opinion as an odd and poor pick.
That reasoning doesn’t sound political or judicial. It sounds elitist.
