In a rare interview with Bari Weiss, Justice Barrett weighs in on Trump’s clash with the courts, whether we face a constitutional crisis, and the biggest cases of her tenure so far.
After reading some of the comments concerning Trump’s court picks, I must jump in. Trump’s first-term appointments were all picked by the dreaded RINO Mitch McConnel from a list supplied by Federalist Society. Trump knew this would keep actual Conservatives and Libertarians in his Populist-Nationalist camp. Now that he sees himself as the only alternative to KBJ type picks expect him to pick equivelant idiots. He doesn't like the Federalist Society now because some of their picks ruled against him in cases. I think he actually thinks judges should be part of his personal patronage system.
Only a person with her head up her ass would ask Barrett about Mike Davis's intemperate comment. This is a very disappointing interview, more suitable for the National Enquirer.
Honestly this was kind of boring. ACB is obviously very intelligent; she isn't (or wasn't) very playful or fun, and, maybe that's ok for a justice to be a little dry. But there wasn't much in the way of animated discussion about judicial philosophy or a deep dive into some of the important cases and why she voted the way she did, etc. Just a generic paean to the Court's important role in our system of government. A missed opportunity I think.
But she did speak to philosophy, especially the restrictions of the court’s authority. The Court decides if the issue before it was correctly reached. The Court does not decide if the result was the best that could be reached. Her reference to Solomon and the distinction of the scope of authority was very well done. I think many people do not understand that.
Now, I’ll concede it may have been dry but as an attorney perhaps my perspective did not see it that way.
The Court’s job is not to decide whether the best outcome has been achieved. The Court’s job is to decide whether the outcome achieved is constitutional. (See Scalia, “Stupid, but Constitutional”)
Why important:
Creating law that achieves best outcomes is a LEGISLATIVE duty not a judicial authority. ACB expressed that limit directly to an audience, not at the event, but online who may not understand the difference.
I thought ACB stumbled a little bit as a speaker. But quickly settled down and spoke very well. As above, that’s not her job; being a speaker. Her job is being a thinker. And clearly she excels in her real job.
The question that was not asked which is KEY to current Supreme Court rulings favouring this president is what constitutes the claim of an EMERGENCY for the docket to continue as shadow? Is there a written expose? Or does the executive just have to use the word EMERGENCY. What Amy claims is not being witnessed. Constitution???
I generally like Bari as an interviewer on Honestly, but her questions here were just downright stupid. Asking the Justice to pit herself against others on the court, choose favorites is just something she is not willing to do (both here and in ANY interview she gives). Bari should have known better and come up with better questions.
You closed the comments section on the excerpt from Justice Barett's new book, so I am informing you here that I have translated it into Hebrew and it will hopefully appear this weekend in an Israeli weekly. It is an eye opener to anyone who deals with Israel's Supreme Court which does as it pleases, ignores the Knesset and renews itself by choosing new justices by means of a committee where current justices run the show- Amy's humbleness and integrity are a breath of fresh air. (Worry not, I am retired Editor in Chief of Israelnationalnews.com and now their Senior Consultant. Translating is one of the things I do.) Rochel Sylvetsky, Jerusalem
Interestingly, SCOTUS does as it pleases and ignores Congress and the Executive when issues related to actions of either branch come before it.
When issues not related to the other two branches, Congress and the Executive have ZERO authority to direct SCOTUS to do or not do anything. Thus, SCOTUS can ignore them.
I was surprised in the discussion of opinion polls and each side being disappointed that their pov doesn’t always prevail that the justice didn’t talk about the distinction between democracy and a constitutional republic.
What a tremendous interview. Amy Coney Barrett's thoughts and comments have confirmed what I have long suspected, that the folks who actually serve in her position are fundamentally above the fray of politics and "apply the law" over their own personal beliefs.
“Apply the law over their personal beliefs”: Barrett was describing how the six conservative Justices do their jobs (most of the time).
The liberal Justices start out with their personal beliefs (usually “social justice”, whatever that happens to mean at the moment), and cobble together some kind of justification for their desired position out of the Constitution, or foreign laws, or the zeitgeist, or whatever sounds good.
Under the doctrine of the “Living Constitution”, liberal Justices see themselves as benevolent dictators, shoving Progress down the throat of a benighted, recalcitrant people. Roe v. Wade is a good example.
Amy Coney Barrett presents herself as a sympathetic figure. However, the interview seemed very careful to keep everything shallow and quick. You are left without knowing what the accessible justice really think and what were her real answers to uncomfortable questions that are mentioned, but never pursued. A well-dressed waste.
After reading some of the comments concerning Trump’s court picks, I must jump in. Trump’s first-term appointments were all picked by the dreaded RINO Mitch McConnel from a list supplied by Federalist Society. Trump knew this would keep actual Conservatives and Libertarians in his Populist-Nationalist camp. Now that he sees himself as the only alternative to KBJ type picks expect him to pick equivelant idiots. He doesn't like the Federalist Society now because some of their picks ruled against him in cases. I think he actually thinks judges should be part of his personal patronage system.
Only a person with her head up her ass would ask Barrett about Mike Davis's intemperate comment. This is a very disappointing interview, more suitable for the National Enquirer.
That question was indeed garbage. It stood out in an otherwise excellent interview.
Honestly this was kind of boring. ACB is obviously very intelligent; she isn't (or wasn't) very playful or fun, and, maybe that's ok for a justice to be a little dry. But there wasn't much in the way of animated discussion about judicial philosophy or a deep dive into some of the important cases and why she voted the way she did, etc. Just a generic paean to the Court's important role in our system of government. A missed opportunity I think.
But she did speak to philosophy, especially the restrictions of the court’s authority. The Court decides if the issue before it was correctly reached. The Court does not decide if the result was the best that could be reached. Her reference to Solomon and the distinction of the scope of authority was very well done. I think many people do not understand that.
Now, I’ll concede it may have been dry but as an attorney perhaps my perspective did not see it that way.
I think the court is far better now than it was 40 years ago. Hopefully we won't get any more dei morons on it.
IMO most important point ACB raised:
The Court’s job is not to decide whether the best outcome has been achieved. The Court’s job is to decide whether the outcome achieved is constitutional. (See Scalia, “Stupid, but Constitutional”)
Why important:
Creating law that achieves best outcomes is a LEGISLATIVE duty not a judicial authority. ACB expressed that limit directly to an audience, not at the event, but online who may not understand the difference.
I thought ACB stumbled a little bit as a speaker. But quickly settled down and spoke very well. As above, that’s not her job; being a speaker. Her job is being a thinker. And clearly she excels in her real job.
Wonderful interview Bari!
As a lawyer, hearing the clarity and depth of her thinking gives me incredible joy.
I am watching the ever-present TV commercials of Governor Newsom promoting Prop 50 here in California.
Am I the the only one feeling the vaguely Hitlerian posturing in these? I so hesitate to go in this direction (per Goodwins Law).
The end of the Sham-Democracy that is California?
The question that was not asked which is KEY to current Supreme Court rulings favouring this president is what constitutes the claim of an EMERGENCY for the docket to continue as shadow? Is there a written expose? Or does the executive just have to use the word EMERGENCY. What Amy claims is not being witnessed. Constitution???
“Emergency” will be a creature of statute not constitutional law.
Excellent!
I generally like Bari as an interviewer on Honestly, but her questions here were just downright stupid. Asking the Justice to pit herself against others on the court, choose favorites is just something she is not willing to do (both here and in ANY interview she gives). Bari should have known better and come up with better questions.
FANTASTIC INSIGHT INTO AN HONEST INTELLIGENT DIALOGUE.
WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE THEM.
They did not disappoint me, I like and respect them both!!
You closed the comments section on the excerpt from Justice Barett's new book, so I am informing you here that I have translated it into Hebrew and it will hopefully appear this weekend in an Israeli weekly. It is an eye opener to anyone who deals with Israel's Supreme Court which does as it pleases, ignores the Knesset and renews itself by choosing new justices by means of a committee where current justices run the show- Amy's humbleness and integrity are a breath of fresh air. (Worry not, I am retired Editor in Chief of Israelnationalnews.com and now their Senior Consultant. Translating is one of the things I do.) Rochel Sylvetsky, Jerusalem
Interestingly, SCOTUS does as it pleases and ignores Congress and the Executive when issues related to actions of either branch come before it.
When issues not related to the other two branches, Congress and the Executive have ZERO authority to direct SCOTUS to do or not do anything. Thus, SCOTUS can ignore them.
I was surprised in the discussion of opinion polls and each side being disappointed that their pov doesn’t always prevail that the justice didn’t talk about the distinction between democracy and a constitutional republic.
What a tremendous interview. Amy Coney Barrett's thoughts and comments have confirmed what I have long suspected, that the folks who actually serve in her position are fundamentally above the fray of politics and "apply the law" over their own personal beliefs.
Also, Bari did a terrific job!
“Apply the law over their personal beliefs”: Barrett was describing how the six conservative Justices do their jobs (most of the time).
The liberal Justices start out with their personal beliefs (usually “social justice”, whatever that happens to mean at the moment), and cobble together some kind of justification for their desired position out of the Constitution, or foreign laws, or the zeitgeist, or whatever sounds good.
Under the doctrine of the “Living Constitution”, liberal Justices see themselves as benevolent dictators, shoving Progress down the throat of a benighted, recalcitrant people. Roe v. Wade is a good example.
How did you get access to their head?
I will have you know I have never made use of the Justices’ head.
Or their cloak room. Or their cafeteria.
That's funny sh!t shipmate
A Constitutional crisis only exists when the MSMDemocratDCDeepState is displeased over a turn of events.
Amy Coney Barrett presents herself as a sympathetic figure. However, the interview seemed very careful to keep everything shallow and quick. You are left without knowing what the accessible justice really think and what were her real answers to uncomfortable questions that are mentioned, but never pursued. A well-dressed waste.