‘Judicial Philosophies Are Not The Same As Political Parties’

[Chris]

‘Judicial Philosophies Are Not The Same As Political Parties’

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett worried Sunday that the court is increasingly being portrayed to the public as a partisan institution, emphasizing that justices must be “hyper vigilant” that they do not let personal biases affect their work.

“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she told guests at the University of Louisville Sunday, the Courier Journal reported. “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” she said, citing several cases where the Supreme Court did not rule along party lines.

“The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results and decisions,” Barrett continued, adding that this “makes the decision seem results-oriented” and “leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong, based on whether she liked the results of the decision.”

“And here’s the thing: Sometimes, I don’t like the results of my decisions,” the Supreme Court justice continued, according to the Courier Journal. “But it’s not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want.”

The justice also emphasized that members of the highest court in the land should be “hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too,” Politico reported....

I agree with her. As she says, people judge the court by outcomes favorable to their politics. But those outcomes are really the result of judicial philosophies that can be summarized as strict construction vs living documentism. The true meaning of conservatism comes out in strict construction based on originalism/textualism, that is abiding by the meaning of the text as ratified or voted on. Strict construction is not agenda-driven. Living documentism is.

[Chris]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett picking up 'mores' of Supreme Court, Breyer says

Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Amy Coney Barrett found common ground Monday over shared concern that the nation's highest court is increasingly viewed in ideological terms.

Barrett, in one of her first public speeches as a justice, told an audience Sunday in Kentucky that "this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks," according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Breyer, asked about those comments in an interview with the Washington Post on Monday, said that he agrees "with I think the approach is that she's taking there."

"As I’ve said, it takes some years and then you gradually pick up the mores of the institution. And the mores of the institution -- you’re a judge, and you better be there for everybody," said Breyer, the court's oldest member and most senior liberal. "Even if a Democrat or Republican appointed you - you’re there as a judge."...

[MMC]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett picking up 'mores' of Supreme Court, Breyer says

And the leftness wants Breyer to resign. All due to that philosophy.

[carolina73]

I find that a hard sell after Obama's appointees.

[Chris]

I find that a hard sell after Obama's appointees.

Because those who adhere to living documentism allow political agendas to creep in. Those who adhere to strict construction do so much less leading often to disappointment on the right.

[RMNIXON]

The current legal struggle is between Constitutional restraint on Government like Equal Protection and Individual Liberties Vs. Social Justice and the extension of Federal Powers under progressive control. That is why we are witness to assaults on free speech and equal protection in favor of group rights.

Social Justice notions have creeped into both parties, however the divide is among genuine conservatives vs the modern left.

[RMNIXON]

Because those who adhere to living documentism allow political agendas to creep in. Those who adhere to strict construction do so much less leading often to disappointment on the right.

The founders provided for an amendment process and made it difficult for a reason. They did not debate every aspect of the Constitution with published arguments so that others could come along later and read between the lines!

[Chris]

Clarence Thomas blasts media, defends Supreme Court after Texas abortion decision

Justice Clarence Thomas became the latest member of the U.S. Supreme Court to take aim at the media, defending the court as nonpartisan Thursday as he warned against "destroying our institutions because they don't give us what we want, when we want it," according to reports.

"I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference," Thomas told an audience at the University of Notre Dame, the Washington Post reported. "So if they think you are anti-abortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out. They think you’re for this or for that. They think you become like a politician." ...

The media of course repeats its lies in support of court packing.