Justice Amy Coney Barrett worries public sees Supreme Court as partisan

[Me.]

“LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concerns Sunday that the public may increasingly see the court as a partisan institution.

Justices must be “hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too,” Barrett said at a lecture hosted by the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center.

Introduced by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who founded the center and played a key role in pushing through her confirmation in the last days of the Trump administration, Barrett spoke at length about her desire for others to see the Supreme Court as nonpartisan.

Barrett said the media’s reporting of opinions doesn’t capture the deliberative process in reaching those decisions. And she insisted that “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.”...cont...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/justice-amy-coney-barrett-worries-public-sees-supreme-court-as-partisan-01631499697

Do we have a sailing ship smilie?

[regnaD kciN]

1. This wins the "Not The Onion" Award for the month...

[MustLoveBeagles]

21. +1

You beat me to it.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. I would ask, how can someone be so obtuse and still make it to the Supreme Court?

But, sadly, I know the answer.

[Merlot]

5. She's not obtuse, she's lecturing us on what we're doing wrong

by having the correct perception that the court is partisan.

[Merlot]

3. ...but takes no responsibility for publics perception of partisanship on SC

[Ocelot II]

4. Now why in the world would she ever think such a thing?

[elleng]

6. If You Don't Want To Be Seen As a Partisan Hack...

Dan Rather, Elliot Kirschner, and Steady Team

https://steady.substack.com/p/if-you-dont-want-to-be-seen-as-a?

[Hortensis]

34. Appreciated this, thanks.

[Nevilledog]

7. Actual picture of her complaining about partisanship...

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Arlen Parsa
@arlenparsa
This is an actual photograph of Amy Coney Barrett complaining that people see the Supreme Court as a partisan Republican tool nowadays
Image
6:06 AM · Sep 13, 2021

[70sEraVet]

12. McConnell's b..ch performing at McConnell's Center

Nope. Don't see any partisanship there.

[Me.]

30. Me Thinks She Complains Too Much

to plead innocence

[brush]

8. STFU, you walking, talking,voting oxymoron.

How can a woman be an originalist?

[texasfiddler]

9. Why would her husband make her say that!!!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. Or, why would her husband ALLOW her to say that?

I hope he's not losing control over his chattel.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. A Good Start Would Be...

...resign her position.
SCOTUS becomes instantly less partisan.

[scarytomcat]

13. Well resign and let a real President appoint someone.

[C_U_L8R]

14. She's more worried about Perception than actual Policy.

Amy, maybe if you didn't support such heinous rightwingnut strategy, the public might have a better perception of you and your republican-fed collaborators.

[Sherman A1]

16. Bingo

We have a winner.

[sakabatou]

18. Yep.

[BlueLucy]

15. That's what I call gaslighting! nt

[sakabatou]

17. Ya THINK?!

[ananda]

19. Is she having the vapors with her knickers in a twist?

Poow baby.

Just... fuck her.

[leftyladyfrommo]

20. I just can't believe she came out with this statement.

They must really be getting hit with complaints from
everywhere. And they should be. This was an awful decision.

[helpisontheway]

22. Perhaps you should have thought about that before you voted with

your buddies on the court for personal reasons.

[Deminpenn]

23. This is a good thing

Awareness of public perceptions should temper her future decisions.

[KentuckyWoman]

24. Maybe she and Collins can start the Concern Squad.

They can share tips.

[Hekate]

28. KentuckyWoman, that is way more perceptive than what I bleeped out. Concern Squad it is...

…henceforth.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

25. Now why would they think that?

[Baked Potato]

26. Whew! I was getting a little worried, all better now.

*Mega-sarcasm

[Corgigal]

27. Too late

Corrupt. So is that man sharing the stage.

[hunter]

29. She can fix that by destroying Brett Kavanaugh and resigning.

Easy.

[Whiskeytide]

31. This is a poison pill statement to discourage ...

… expanding the Court for “partisan reasons”. Nothing more.

[Me.]

32. Bazinga!

Doesn't she think she's a smartie.

[Frustratedlady]

33. This statement was the one that really puzzled me. The rest were expected.

"Barrett said the media’s reporting of opinions doesn’t capture the deliberative process in reaching those decisions."

I thought their "decision" came out pretty quickly with little or no time for "deliberative process".

[Hortensis]

35. So true, leaving the reporting of stripping of rights all too clear.

Their bad. They depend extremely heavily on maintaining a thick smoke screen of confusion over their betrayals.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

36. This "lady" is a partisan hack

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

37. Amy Coney Barrett wants us to believe the Supreme Court isn't partisan. Good luck with that

This "lady" is a partisan religious nut case hack

Link to tweet

Even worse is that the ruling was made on a procedural question without the court even hearing argument on the merits of the Texas law. In a rare public comment, Breyer — one of the four justices who voted to block the Texas law at least temporarily — called the ruling “very, very, very wrong.” And Breyer is very, very, very right to be upset, because even if the ruling is technically just about procedure, it has concrete and dramatic impact on any Texas woman who is or becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to be. Moreover, other states with Republican-controlled state legislatures are rushing to draft copycat laws. If the Supreme Court wants to let states ban abortion, it should just go ahead and reverse Roe v. Wade.

I see no reason to believe the court’s conservative majority will stop short of doing just that. Thomas and Alito have long made clear that they are raring to do just that. And while the three justices appointed by former president Donald Trump — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett — all claimed deep respect for precedent at their confirmation hearings, their votes to let the Texas law go into effect say otherwise.

The conservative Federalist Society, which has become a crucial gatekeeper on the right and vetted a list of acceptable Supreme Court candidates for Trump to choose from, did its job well. The result is a solid five-vote and sometimes six-vote majority that opposes abortion, supports gun rights, questions affirmative action, doubts existing federal protection of voting rights, doesn’t see the influence of big money in politics as a problem... in short, a majority that agrees with the Republican Party’s position on issues the party most cares about.

What can Democrats and progressives do about all the terrible, reactionary, wrongheaded decisions that look likely to come in the next months and years? On voting rights, they could pass strong new federal legislation, like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act or the For the People Act. On other issues, they should prepare to battle at the state level — and to bring the same legislative creativity and tenacity that Texas conservatives brought to bear on the abortion law.

And they should ignore Barrett and others who claim this court’s decisions are nonpartisan — at least until and unless we see evidence to the contrary.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

38. For this thread

[Me.]

41. ...

[Hugin]

39. A shadow docket in the middle of the night is deliberative?

Somehow, I thought due diligence and jurisprudence were more.

Just proves I'm no expert. I guess.

Oh, by the way... If your precedent smashing completely partisan confirmation didn't clue you in to your place. Nothing will, Amsters.

[Hugin]

40. BTW, She should resign in protest of the unfounded partisan perception. n/t