Interviews with Supreme Court justices aren’t all that common, and there are certain boundaries that should be respected. After speaking with Justice Stephen Breyer, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and now Amy Coney Barrett, it might be worthwhile to relax some of those guidelines for future interviews. Writing a book, like Barrett’s recent “Listen to the Law,” is a beneficial step for justices; it’s a platform for them to share their insights. Judge Gorsuch’s earlier book, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It,” also provided valuable perspectives.
Justice Breyer argued for the importance of “doing democratic work” in his approach to vetting, which is fascinating. Then there’s Judge Thomas’s memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son,” detailing his challenging journey from a difficult childhood to his time during the radical college days. I haven’t yet tackled Judge Sotomayor’s works as I haven’t received any interview requests for her, but I’ve heard varying opinions about her titles.
It’s crucial for justices to maintain a personal touch in their public appearances. Litigators should feel free to express themselves, especially when cases reach the highest court. The last thing we need is a court filled with controversial figures who might give a biased impression to a reasonable observer.
Barrett recently addressed partisan critics in an interview, suggesting that, as a justice, she would “wear black rather than red or blue,” indicating a nonpartisan stance. It’s perfectly valid for politicians to tackle the pressing issues of the day, but the courts aren’t meant to issue final judgments on contentious matters affecting the nation.
No matter one’s feelings about court rulings, explanations offered in opinions hold significance. While lawyers and law professors may speculate on outcomes, such speculation doesn’t equate to judicial votes. In fact, even thousands of speculations don’t translate into the five votes required for a majority opinion. There are loads of professors engaged in law across the country, often generating a lot of guesswork during discussions.
If you haven’t immersed yourself in constitutional studies, it’s challenging to grasp how courts operate. Amy Coney Barrett’s “Listen to the Law” serves as a solid introduction. She assumes that readers might be optimistic yet unfamiliar with legal principles, which makes it accessible—an excellent starting point, especially for general readers and law students alike.
It’s worth noting that the Supreme Court, and all federal courts, have limited jurisdiction. The Court was established in 1789 with the Constitution’s ratification and operates under various legislative acts stemming from that original judicial framework.
Article 3 clearly states that the Supreme Court will engage with “cases” and “disputes”; it doesn’t act as a self-appointed Constitutional Committee to address matters that it thinks require intervention. Barrett emphasizes the importance of listening to the law and the established doctrines that define the court’s reach, shedding light on the norms that guide its discussions. She articulates how courts execute their duties in a surprisingly engaging manner.
From her time in the 7th Circuit to her current role, Barrett’s values and collaboration shine in “Listen to the Law.” Recently, we chatted about the decline of civility in public discourse, which has really taken a nosedive, particularly online. Her book raises standards significantly, and I genuinely hope her approach inspires others.
