The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Barrett Says "Read the Opinion"
The Associated Press reports on the junior-most Justice's remarks at the Reagan library.
Yesterday Justice Amy Coney Barrett spoke at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. According to this AP report, Justice Barrett cautioned against interpreting judicial decisions as political statements or assuming that judges are driven by policy results.
When controversial decisions are handed down, Justice Barrett noted, one should read the opinion before reaching conclusions about why the Court decided the case the way it did. From the story:
"Does (the decision) read like something that was purely results driven and designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority, or does this read like it actually is an honest effort and persuasive effort, even if one you ultimately don't agree with, to determine what the Constitution and precedent requires?" she asked.
Americans should judge the court — or any federal court — by its reasoning, she said. "Is its reasoning that of a political or legislative body, or is its reasoning judicial?" she asked.
Asked about the advice she would give a new justice (which seems like a timely question given she will almost certainly be joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson this summer), she responded:
"I think one of the difficult things that I experienced that I wasn't really fully prepared for, was the shift into being a public figure," she said. "Also, security is much different now. … We all have security details and that's different."
The story also noted that Justice Barrett drew at least one heckler, who briefly interrupted her remarks, but this did not seem to faze the junior-most justice. "As a mother of seven, I am used to distractions and sometimes even outbursts," Justice Barrett said after the interruption. Justice Barrett also reportedly expressed some skepticism about allowing cameras into the courtroom.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Does (the decision) read like something that was purely results driven and designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority, or does this read like it actually is an honest effort and persuasive effort, even if one you ultimately don't agree with, to determine what the Constitution and precedent requires?" she asked.
Policy driven opinion was my take with Ginsburg's opinion in the ACA case, same with her dissent in Encino motors & ledbetter- godyear. Sotomayer showed a lot of policy preference in Shuttee & her oral comments during the osha vaccine case ( along with gross missunderstanding of basic facts)
Can you also give us examples of conservative justices imposing their policy preferences, or is that something only liberals do?
Ginsburg was and sotomayer is very obvious crafting their opinions to match policy preferences. While I have disagreed with the legal rationale in numerous conservative opinions, most recently for example thomas' concurring opinion in gamble, I recall any of those opinions to be so blatant policy position based.
Basically every Alito decision is just a rationalization for his policy preferences.
Read Shelby county. Or any non-delegation/major questions opinion. Or any Thomas/Alito criminal justice opinion where they spend time describing the crime instead of addressing the actual issue. Or the Alito/Gorsuch dissent in California v Texas.
One that I think was rather obvious was Scalia's concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich, especially after his position in US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison. After voting to place limits on Congress's Commerce Clause powers in the latter two, he allowed his visceral opposition to recreational drugs to drive his decision in Raich, thus squandering an opportunity to place further restrictions on Congress's powers.
"As a mother of seven, I am used to distractions and sometimes even outbursts," Justice Barrett said after the interruption.
I once observed that women make the best judges, since they have experience in dealing with squabbling children.
Your presumption that fathers lack such experience is noted.
“fazed”
I dunno. I think it's important to note that the particles she's comprised of didn't suddenly change their wavelengths, that she isn't now waxing gibbous, and that she didn't emerge from hibernation in the moment. The public has a right to know where our justices stand on the electromagnetic spectrum.
HOW DARE SHE....Expect people to educate themselves before whining...
"Does (the decision) read like something that was purely results driven and designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority, or does this read like it actually is an honest effort and persuasive effort, even if one you ultimately don't agree with, to determine what the Constitution and precedent requires?"
They usually do. But we are not required to take the reasoning, such as it is, at face value.
They usually do. But we are not required to take the reasoning, such as it is, at face value.
Usually, but not always. And it's not that hard to cover a blatant preference with some patched together "reasoning." These cases are much discussed, after all. They get a lot of help on the plausibility front.
Maybe commenters here usually do [read the opinion]. The rest of the country, though (specifically including members of congress, lobbyists and all reporters), shows no evidence of the ability or interest in reading.
I find the opinions fascinating reading, TBH. I don't always follow the citations, but the arguments are generally pretty interesting. I am surprised on how much I will agree with Justice Sotomayor when it comes to 4th and 5th amendment issues.
Speaking at the Reagan Library . . .
. . . says no one should ascribe partisan politics to Supreme Court justices . . .
Why are conservatives so devoid of self-awareness?
Will it be her turn to speak at a Federalist Society fundraiser this year?
Maybe it is a sign of her increasinf self-awareness that, unlike her last event, she did not bring Mitch McConnell along with her.
Did she wear her handmaiden outfit?
Yeah those conservatives sure were nasty to Jackson, right?
You’re one to talk about a lack of self awareness.
Are you concerned she's going to endorse the term-limited and decades-deceased former president for office, Rev? Because that would certainly be improper.
"Read the opinion" is generally good advice. But useless for the increasing number of important decisions the Court hands down without one.
RGB votes ~99/100 times for the leftist side. Totes not political dude.
When I excoriate leftish justices for being political, I expect it to earn me free rein to do likewise with regard to rightish justices. You seem to work on different principles.
to do likewise with regard to rightish justices.
ha ha ha
Stupid Reason garbage commenting software, that post should have continued:
to do likewise with regard to rightish justices.
ha ha ha, like you ever excoriate leftish justices for being political. Lefty hack.
Vinni, I have repeatedly called for the entire Court to be impeached, for rampant politicization. And I do not mean just politicization with regard to decisions. Too many justices make no secret of associations with left- or right-wing advocacy groups. They lend their names, their images, and the prestige of their presence to events. I have cited specific offenses by Kagan, RBG and others on the left (along with some on the right, too) while doing it.
Your hackish commentary is almost entirely stupid invective. It's only worse when anyone who follows along can see you get even your stupidity wrong.
I mean, she was hired because of her judicial beliefs aligning with the liberal side.
Also, check out her criminal law record sometime - you may learn something beyond knee-jerk partisan demonization.
All I know is that RBG was the swing vote (with the right) in allowing civil asset forfeiture and the swing vote (with the left) on the Kelo decision. Not exactly a beacon in protecting liberty, although I guess you could say her anti-liberty stance was bipartisan.
Sure, you're allowed to judge her philosophy, but that's completely orthogonal to AA's thesis about her methodology being politically-based bad faith.
RBG was rarely a "swing vote." I believe the swing vote in Kelo was O'Connor, no?
Red, Green, Blue?
It's easy to conclude that when you just make up the numbers from your imagination. The court was unanimous for close a third of the decisions she was involved in. Are you suggesting that, during the period they shared tenure with her, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voted for the "leftist side" at least thirty percent of the time?
Decision-making and policy-making always involve choosing among alternatives
The notion that the making of big difficult decisions at the highest level - with no further superior review to constrain the voting and the articulated rationales -- does somehow *not* involve policymaking -- and can somehow be non-political -- is a lie, and not a noble one.
I don't buy it. Clarence Tomas has said that some opinions are only explainable by working backwards from a desired policy outcome. Justices know that they are supposed to appear apolitical. So they avoid writing their politics into their opinions and find other convenient rationale instead. It's human nature.
ACB says "Read the Opinion" .... behavioralists collectively roll their eyes.
You're not supposed to actually read the opinion (or the proposed legislation) you're just supposed to read what the Post or NY Times chooses to tell you about it.
It would be nice if they'd write opinions to read.
Whole Women's Health was a paragraph.
Austin was, too.
Wisconsin was seven whole unsigned pages, although it utterly fails to explain how to distinguish it from Moore (I mean, aside from party affiliation).
She's a troll in a robe.
Bullshit. It’s almost always policy driven. Some are just better at hiding it.
One thing I have noticed as an outsider is it is actually rather easy to spot a "judicial" decision. A judicial decision is one that is first and foremost concerned with legal implications and requirements, and only secondarily with the policy implications. This most obviously comes out in the text of the ruling. Is the ruling comprehensive, does it address all the pertinent laws and regulations? Is it practical, that is, does it propose a conclusion that is implementable? Does it make the administration of the law more robust, or more fragile?
I am a software developer, and we deal with exactly the same dynamic. Yes, we know that the software is supposed to do a certain thing, but how it does it is our first consideration. Will it be sustainable? Will it be less likely to break or to leak? Only then can we get to the actual application.
Part and parcel of believing the other side does nothing but bad faith is doing some work to make sure you are never disabused of that certainty.
Which is why lotsa people here don't want to read the opinion, it seems.
I certainly hope not.
Now, did it faze her?
Read the opinion. . .
* * * sigh * * * if only it was that simple.
SC decisions can be highly nuanced and there are a lot of other things besides the bottom line decision like procedure, standing, references, etc.
Does she really think that (insert your favorite derogatory stereotype), will be able to fully comprehend a SC decision?
Sure, but the thesis here is not about laypeople and the nuances of the decision, but rather the broad question of whether it was reasoned at all:
When controversial decisions are handed down, Justice Barrett noted, one should read the opinion before reaching conclusions about why the Court decided the case the way it did.
I do think a layperson can determine that, at least for most Constitutionally-based decisions.
I get what you're saying but there's about 2 million YouTube "fail" videos that would suggest otherwise. 🙂
bell curve.
I agree, Sarcastr0 = I do think a layperson can determine that, at least for most Constitutionally-based decisions.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
1) Never attended a State of the Union address delivered by a Republican president; and
2) Never failed to attend a State of the Union address delivered by a Democrat president.
ACB delivering remarks at the Reagan library is hardly the most partisan thing justices have done in recent history.
I think her prior decision to appear at an event with Mitch McConnell is more concerning than appearing by herself at the Reagan Library, which raises no eyebrows.
I think "read the opinion" is legit good advice.
I do think that those who say that justices (most of not all of them) bring their ideologies and generally produce an opinion that fits the decision they want are probably right most of the time. But the mere fact of having to write it down is still a constraint of sorts.
Of course, your claims about Ginsburg are false, but why let that fact get in the way of your whataboutism?
"Of course, your claims about Ginsburg are false"
No, they aren't.
So, if a decision has been crafted out of language that looks more "judicial" than legislative, it can't be outcome driven. Oh please. The narrative that originalist/textualist interpretation is not outcome driven just doesn't match what we consistently see from these jurists. There is an intellectual dishonesty at the core of this. It regularly looks like fundamental Christians parsing scripture.
So, if a decision has been crafted out of language that looks more "judicial" than legislative, it can't be outcome driven.
Your straw man paraphrase is not at all what she said, making your charge of intellectual dishonesty an exercise in hypocrisy.
The Court, by a 5-4 vote, just granted petitioners the relief they sought in their Application for Stay (Louisiana, et al. v. American Rivers, et al.). ACB was part of the majority. But, the majority does not provide any "reasoning" to explain its decision. How is a person supposed to "judge the court by its reasoning" when the Court does not provide any reasoning for its decision?
This I also agree with.
If you're going to talk about read the decisions, stop this increasing use of the shadow docket.
Including, of course, the increasing number of non-urgent shadow docket decisions released with no opinion explaining the rationale (sometimes a dissent, but I really would like to compare it to the logic of the opinion). Most recently:
ACB is being highly disingenuous. But we knew that.
Worth noting that Thomas is wont to provide an extended account of a crime when those details are utterly irrelevant to the case in front of him - for obvious reasons.
According to this AP report, Justice Barrett cautioned against interpreting judicial decisions as political statements or assuming that judges are driven by policy results.
We don't even need to assume a bad faith political agenda from judges to be deeply concerned about how judges arrive at their decisions. Justice Barrett should be cautioned not to erect straw men.
What we always should assume is that judges, even Supreme Court Justices, are people. And people are susceptible to cognitive biases. As it happens, Justice Barrett is one of the few on the current Court that had not served in partisan politically-appointed roles prior to becoming a judge. (In fact, it may not be a coincidence that her primary career was as a legal academic, as was Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the Justice she would replace. Although, RBG had a lot of experience in litigation over women's rights issues, including in front of the Supreme Court.)
If the tendency is to find SCOTUS nominees from among those with experience as government lawyers of some sort, then it would be prudent, at the least, to carefully consider each such nominee for their ability to reason without falling into the traps of cognitive bias. That is difficult to do based on their record alone, as a lawyer on Congressional staff or working for the executive branch is going to be bound to make arguments in favor of a policy or law, even if they personally disagree with it.
With RBG not answering direct questions regarding her opinions on the legal merits of issues likely to come up before the Court in the future, a lot of the questioning of nominees has fallen to "judicial philosophy". But this doesn't help get at whether the nominee will be able to set aside personal beliefs and biases and rule by reason, evidence, and the law alone. A nominee can outline what methods and ideas they want to use to make decisions, but we'd have little hope of gleaning from those answers whether they would actually apply that thinking consistently and without regard to partisanship or personal opinions.
The truth is that presidents and senators (and their staff) have gotten quite good at determining how a lawyer is likely to rule once sitting on the bench with a lifetime appointment, especially at the Circuit Court and Supreme Court level. It seems highly unlikely we'll ever see another appointed judge surprise the President that nominated them the way that David Souter did. Republicans in particular felt so burned by him, that they put great care into developing and building the careers of solid conservatives that wouldn't turn out to be liberals once on the bench (see, The Federalist Society).
If Justice Barrett really wants the American public to view judges as non-partisan, then it is on them to be careful with where they choose to speak, what they choose to speak about publicly, and what they say at such events, as well as their reasoning and decisions, to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. I can't think of any Justices that have met that standard in a long while.