SCOTUS Does Not Exist to Please You, Especially Amy Coney Barrett

JUST IN: Justice Amy Coney Barrett has independent legal judgment, which she exercises accordingly. This, apparently, is a problem for many. At least when her studied opinion of the law, constitution, and precedent do not line up perfectly with the stated goals of Donald J. Trump. She found herself sided with the majority in a ruling against the Trump administration (explained well here by David Thornton), and then in the crosshairs of those who can’t believe her audacity in daring to think for herself.

And look, I get it. I’d be a lying hypocrite if I didn’t admit to feeling anger from time to time when a SCOTUS opinion doesn’t go the way I’d prefer. It is an inevitability, due to human nature, that the legal opinions of Supreme Court Justices will occasionally be swayed by their political beliefs, even among those who try their level best to be objective. And I admit to harboring uncharitable thoughts about certain members of the bench whom I believe to be unduly partisan in their “analysis” of some issues. But I know this about myself, so most of the time I don’t spout off about what a partisan hack I believe Alito to be, in case my judgment might be clouded by something other than informed and educated legal scholarship. At the very least, I run the risk of facing the accusation, so I grumble privately.

Unfortunately, not everyone is as introspective. Color me surprised, though, to see the sheer number of folks who are suddenly willing to say the quiet part out loud: They really do just want justices who will do Trump’s bidding, not those who genuinely try to follow the law and the constitution. Hard to believe there was a time when we used to at least have the decency to pretend to want a fair and impartial court, even if we didn’t.

When Amy Coney Barrett sat in her confirmation hearing and delivered impeccable and scholarly answers to complex questions of law and precedent, even the most liberal of us lawyers had to concede her intellectual prowess and depth of knowledge – even as we entertained misgivings about how her personal beliefs might potentially influence her rulings. I even wrote a four part series here, digging deeply into her written opinions from the course of her career. My goal was to inform myself and the readers of OT so that if we wanted to love or hate Amy, we would at least be doing so from a place of information rather than talking point ignorance.

What I found was what an objective person should find in such a foray into the jurisprudence of a SCOTUS nominee: a judge trying sincerely to call balls and strikes, doing her best to be consistent and thorough in applying her analysis of the law and constitutional principles. If I found myself agreeing with her or any judge on every single thing they write, that’s a problem. Because the law is not always what I – or you – want it to be. It’s not a judge’s job to rule based on what the law ought to be, or to twist it to reach a specific outcome; a good judge applies the law as it is, based on a good faith analysis. This can differ from one judge to another, obviously. Consistency is key.

Barrett’s performance at her confirmation hearing left conservatives and right-leaning folks elated, thrilled with the brilliant legal mind “their side” was elevating to the highest bench. But the honeymoon did not last, of course; it didn’t take all that long before she earned the nickname “Amy Commie Barrett” from detractors. As I wrote here at OT in 2021 when Barrett rejected an appeal regarding vaccine mandates at Indiana University:

Unfortunately, those who thought Amy Coney Barrett’s role was to enact their policy preferences rather than carefully consider the applicable law see this as a shocking betrayal – just as they did when she failed to give credence to laughable “election fraud” cases, didn’t vote to dismantle the ACA, and signed on to the Fulton v City of Philadelphia opinion that didn’t go far enough in its sanctioning of religious discrimination against LGBTQ foster parents.

No justice, no matter who appoints her, is always going to do what you want. That is not why they are there. We should be glad when justices follow a good faith interpretation of the law, not the popular stance of their parties. It’s nice when those things align on issues we care about, but only those with a simplistic and immature view of the law expect it to always be so.

Instead of being reassured about objectivity, folks who don’t know their mandamus from a habeas corpus are calling for the removal of a jurist for “getting it wrong.” That’s fine; Amy Coney Barrett is appointed for life. She doesn’t have to care.

The Supreme Court does not work for Donald Trump. Just like the Department of Justice doesn’t work for Donald Trump, nor do almost any federal employees, all of whom work for the American people, despite what Elon might have you believe. While the President’s agenda is undoubtedly a guiding force in the work they do (in any administration), it does not mean they must fulfill his wishes at all costs; they are still subject to the law – checked and balanced by them, if you will. The Court, most importantly, cannot be beholden to a figurehead, or the whole great American experiment is over.

A Justice of the Supreme Court following what she believes to be correct under the law and constitution used to be considered a good thing. Some of us still think so, and we are right.