Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently shed light on the judiciary’s purpose and independence during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier. She promoted her latest book, Listening to the Law, while addressing the growing partisan narratives surrounding the Supreme Court. “We wear black, not red or blue,” she asserted firmly, emphasizing the intention behind the justices’ roles. Barrett contended that the Court’s decisions hinge on constitutional principles rather than political alignments. In doing so, she aimed to clarify what she perceives as a significant misunderstanding among the public about how the Court operates and the integrity behind its processes.
Barrett’s comments serve as a reminder that the justices do not align with political factions. “We’re not playing for a team,” she stressed. The Supreme Court, according to Barrett, is not a battlefield for left versus right but a forum that operates on legal assessment. She pointed out that judges sit in order of seniority rather than political affiliation, again distancing the judiciary from partisan divisions.
The disconnection between public perception and the actual workings of the Court was another key point Barrett made. She frequently asks new law clerks what surprises them most about joining the Court. “One of the most common answers is the difference between what’s happening on the inside and what people think is happening on the inside,” Barrett revealed. This gap in understanding illustrates a broader issue regarding the transparency and narrative surrounding the judicial system.
Addressing critiques about the Court’s perceived leniency towards former President Donald Trump, Barrett contextualized its decisions on presidential power. She argued that cases are made not merely for the current president but are inherently tied to the institution itself. “We’re not deciding cases just for today, and we’re not deciding cases based on the president,” Barrett explained. She insists that the rulings reflect on the powers of the presidency across future administrations, indicating a broader significance than some critics acknowledge.
Barrett reiterated that Supreme Court rulings on presidential power will have implications for years to come. “Four presidencies from now, six presidencies from now… each of these cases is presenting different constitutional issues,” she argued. This perspective highlights the Court’s responsibility not only to current legal challenges but to the precedent being set for future leaders.
Turning her focus to the controversial Dobbs decision, Barrett clarified that the ruling did not ban abortion outright; rather, it shifted the question back to the political realm. “Dobbs did not say that abortion is illegal. Dobbs said it belongs to the political process,” she clarified. This distinction has been largely lost in the heated public discourse surrounding the ruling, and Barrett’s emphasis on the law’s directions over public sentiment is striking.
In an unsettling reality for judges, Barrett acknowledged the rising threats to their safety, stating that violence should never be a consequence of serving in the judiciary. She drew attention to the importance of upholding the law regardless of public opinion, stating, “You have to follow the law where it leads, even if it leads in a place where the majority of people don’t want you to go.” This commitment to the rule of law, even in the face of unpopularity, illustrates the principles of integrity and responsibility that Barrett upholds within her judicial philosophy.
The overall theme of Barrett’s remarks circles back to the vital role of the Supreme Court as a nonpartisan judicial entity. By emphasizing the quality of justices listening to the law, Barrett calls for a reconsideration of how the public perceives the Court and its decisions. Her reflections in the interview serve as both a defense of the Court’s integrity and a challenge to the misconceptions that pervade discussions about its work.
"*" indicates required fields
