In a forthcoming book, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, robustly defends her decision to overturn nationwide abortion rights.
The book, titled "Listening to the Law," is set to be published by the conservative Sentinel imprint of Penguin Random House. In it, Justice Barrett provides an insight into the inner workings of the Supreme Court and her approach to the intersection of faith and law.
As reported by The Washington Times, Justice Barrett, who ascended to the bench in 2020 following the demise of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, characterizes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that established a national right to abortion, as an "exercise of raw judicial power."
She further aligns herself with the majority opinion that Roe was erroneously decided, thereby justifying the court's deviation from its usual adherence to precedent.
"The evidence does not show that the American people have traditionally considered the right to obtain an abortion so fundamental to liberty that it 'goes without saying' in the Constitution. In fact, the evidence cuts in the opposite direction.
Abortion not only lacked long-standing protection in American law it had long been forbidden," Justice Barrett argues.
She also notes, according to a manuscript shared exclusively with CNN, that the "complicated moral debate" surrounding abortion does not seem to impact other rights that enjoy more public support, such as "the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception."
Justice Barrett candidly shares her past frustrations with the Supreme Court's rulings, citing their often cryptic language and failure to resolve seemingly obvious points. "Before I joined the Court, I was sometimes frustrated by an opinions cryptic language or its failure to resolve fairly obvious points. Now I better appreciate that glossing over issues is often deliberate," she writes.
She reveals that the justices strive to find consensus on key aspects, but they narrow the opinion if they disagree on broader or surrounding matters. "Skirting issues is sometimes the price of finding common ground though its frustrating to delete points Id like to make," she admits.
Justice Barrett also recounts her contentious 2017 confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She recalls being questioned about her Catholic faith by the late Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who suggested that her religious beliefs might influence her rulings.
Critics argued that the senator's line of questioning constituted an unlawful religious test for judges.
"Some suggest that people of faith have a particularly difficult time following the law rather than their moral views. (I faced that criticism as a Catholic, most sharply when the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing to consider my nomination to the Seventh Circuit.) Im not sure why," Justice Barrett writes.
She emphasizes that both religious and nonreligious judges have deeply held moral commitments, which can sometimes conflict with the demands of the law. She cites her vote to reinstate the death penalty for Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an example of this conflict, despite her personal opposition to the death penalty.
"For me, death penalty cases drive home the collision between the law and my personal beliefs. Swearing to apply the law faithfully means deciding each case based on my best judgment about what the law is. If I decide a case based on my judgment about what the law should be, Im cheating," she asserts.
Justice Barrett's book promises to offer an intimate look into the workings of the Supreme Court and the thought processes of its justices. It also underscores the ongoing debate about the role of personal beliefs in judicial decision-making, a topic that remains as relevant and contentious as ever.
Login