- Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the Supreme Court throughout a speech on Sunday.
- Barrett stated the courtroom shouldn’t be partisan and expressed issues over the general public’s views of the courtroom.
- “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” Barrett stated.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the Supreme Court throughout a speech Sunday and expressed issues concerning the public’s notion of the courtroom.
“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” Barrett stated, in accordance with USA Today. “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.”
Barrett was talking at an occasion for the 30th anniversary of the University of Kentucky’s McConnell Center, which was based by Sen. Mitch McConnell, who launched Barrett on the occasion.
Barrett, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2020 in a controversial affirmation, stated justices should be “hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too,” The Associated Press reported.
She additionally stated the best way the media covers the courtroom and “hot takes on Twitter” contribute to the concept that the justices are making results-oriented choices, slightly than an interpretation of the legislation.
“Sometimes, I don’t like the results of my decisions. But it’s not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want,” she stated, USA Today reported.
Barrett was appointed to the courtroom by President Donald Trump following the demise of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, rising the courtroom’s conservative majority to 6-Three.
Her speech got here after a Supreme Court determination earlier this month declined to dam a controversial Texas legislation that banned abortions after six weeks of being pregnant. The determination was met with criticism, together with from abortion rights advocates and President Joe Biden.
The courtroom voted largely alongside social gathering traces, 5-Four, with Chief Justice John Roberts becoming a member of the liberal justices. However, the bulk opinion stated the ruling was technical and never primarily based on the substance of the legislation, which might nonetheless be challenged in courtroom.