Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Monday that public scrutiny of the Supreme Court is hardly new and should be welcomed, and that she has developed a “thick skin” about criticism of her role as one of the newest justices.
“With everything, there can be good and bad,” Barrett said at a conference of judges and lawyers. “With the court being in the news, to the extent that it engages people with the work of the court, and paying attention to the court and knowing what the courts do and what the Constitution has to say, that’s a positive development.”
The downside, she said, comes if there is a misperception about the court’s work or if there is the sense that it has “let people down.”
She’s not wanting oversight tho…
She’s just fine with people talking about how corrupt she is, and that she’s a religious extremist placed on the court to turn her cults rules into laws everyone has to follow.
It’s a lot easier to accept criticism when it has no power over your job, salary, perks, or lifestyle. SCOTUS sure wasn’t “comfortable” when the public scrutiny was camped at their driveways.
She just means she doesn’t give a shit if people think she’s biased or corrupt.
The court’s work speaks for itself, far louder than Barrett understands. The misperception about the court’s work lies in Barrett’s skewed reality.
“Thick skin” = willing to ignore said oversight and everything it says (just like she does to the Constitution).
I’m more interested to know whether she’s developed an understanding of our branches of government.
That’s because she hasn’t been there long enough to build up years of corruption and bribery yet.
And I thought that was a requierement to even get the job
In her case, it was just willingness to lick Trump boot.
Thick skin can be a great asset against flak. What other mutations will she be seeking ahead of the mushroom wars?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
She was gently interviewed by Diane S. Sykes, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago and a former colleague.
Criticism mostly concerns expensive trips taken years ago by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., underwritten by wealthy business executives and not disclosed in required annual financial reports.
Whether Congress has the authority to impose a specific code of ethics on the Supreme Court has divided Democrats and Republicans, constitutional experts and the justices themselves.
Alito earlier this summer was emphatic in an interview with a lawyer and editorial writer in the Wall Street Journal about Congress’s role.
Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t nearly as definitive when asked at a conference for the 9th Circuit in Portland, Ore. “It just can’t be that the court is the only institution that is somehow not subject to any checks and balances from anybody else,” she said, adding, “I mean, we are not imperial.”
And she said Justice Sonia Sotomayor sent Barrett’s husband, Jesse, back to South Bend, Ind., with Halloween candy chosen for each of her children.
The original article contains 766 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
