The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Listening to Justice Barrett
My review of Amy Coney Barrett's Listening to the Law.
I reviewed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution for Civitas Outlook. My bottom line: the book is a worthwhile contribution to the shelf of books by sitting Supreme Court justices.
My review begins:
Amy Coney Barrett was not a likely judge, let alone a likely Supreme Court justice. A young Amy Coney did not even aspire to be a lawyer. She only settled on law school after college, over pursuing an English PhD, and excelled. She was an exceptional student who earned the admiration of her classmates and the profound respect of her professors, who would soon invite her to become a colleague. In 2002, she joined the faculty of the Notre Dame Law School, seeming to fulfill her professional vocation.
Just as her intellect had always attracted the notice of her peers, then-Professor Barrett attracted notice within the conservative legal movement. This led to her appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit — one of several academics placed on the appellate bench during President Trump's first term — and just three years later, her elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Within a year of joining the Court, Justice Barrett signed a book deal reportedly worth $2 million. The deal raised eyebrows in some quarters, even though most other recently confirmed justices have done the same, and some have earned more. Justice Barrett's book itself, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution, should not provoke much controversy, however. An instant New York Times best-seller, it is a valuable contribution to public discourse about the role of the courts and the Constitution.
Although Justice Barrett was an academic, this is not an academic book; far from it. Listening to the Law is written for an educated lay audience. It seeks to elucidate and explain, not break new ground. It is accessible and clear but not simplistic. In this regard, it has much in common with the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist's book on the Supreme Court, though it is also a bit more revealing and prescriptive. Indeed, Listening to the Law is likely the best lay introduction to the Court, the Constitution, and the reigning judicial philosophy in print. (And given how often critics of originalism struggle with fairly characterizing the target of their efforts, quite a few practitioners and legal academics would benefit from reading it too.)
The whole review is here.

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
I liked Rehnquist's book so I might check out Barrett's.
The end of the review: "Justice Barrett may have been an unlikely jurist, but the nation is lucky to have her, and those interested in the Court’s work are fortunate to have this book."
So I guess we won't put Prof. Adler in the "Barrett should resign immediately!" camp. (Membership: one.)
Originalism is a result oriented scam. It produced one of the most despicable opinions in the history of jurisprudence:
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 403 (1856).
Id., at 604-605.
The most strident proponents of "massive resistance" to school desegregation in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), claimed to venerate "states' rights" which were purportedly set forth in the original Constitution. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto
"Originalism" is a gossamer façade for naked racism and oppression.
Are you saying that the Ouija board that Scalia used to communicate with the Founding Fathers was not actually functional? 🙂
Justice Scalia was a brilliant writer. But the substance was old whine served in new whineskins.
I'm not an originalist, but Taney's history lesson was flawed.
See, e.g, Don Fehrenbacher's book on the case.
I question that "originalism" per se is why Taney wrote that opinion.
Original meaning, however, was the peg that Taney chose to hang his hat on. It has long been the favorite refuge of racial bigots.
As I said, originalism is a result oriented scam.
not guilty 12 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Original meaning, however, was the peg that Taney chose to hang his hat on. It has long been the favorite refuge of racial bigots.
As noted by Adler, Taney's opinion had no basis in originalism.
Oh, this is rich. Okay, I'll bite: what issue do you purport to have with results-oriented decisions? What are your top five favorite SCOTUS decisions?
My top five favorite SCOTUS decisions? I have never composed such a list, but here are some that occur to me off the top of my head:
The common thread here is that each decision significantly expanded liberty and equality.
Abraham Lincoln appealed to original meaning. It was a standard concern of the times. People remembered the original framers. They were in effect worshiped as if they were truly their fathers.
People who want "results-oriented scams" use a variety of techniques to do so. IMHO, a problem with originalism is that it supposedly makes the subjective objective.
People supposedly are applying the wishes of other people. Ultimately, we have to apply the text and its meanings based on current understandings, not using originalism LARP-ing.
The process will be results-oriented in many cases, all the same, but it will be somewhat more honest.
Instead of relying on the fact that nobody in history outside of a portion of western Europe and the anglosphere over the past few decades would agree with stuff like tax payer funded gender reassignment of children and convicts and pronoun policing, to get what they want. Conservatives should just simply do whatever they want through 'living constitutionalism' like progs do!
Disagree. Roe used a more textualist originalist approach , going through each time the word “person” is used in the Constitution and concluding it lacks “prenatal applicability.” Dobbs did not change this.
What was anti-originalist about both Roe and Sanford was the completely non-originalist inference each made that a constitutional right to, respectively, abortion and slave-ownership exists. This was clearly completely inconsistent with historical fact. Regardless of whether or not people of African descent were considered equal to white people or not, the idea that slavery is morally wrong was a well-established opinion at the time of the Founding and had come to be the view of all the Northern states. Several Northern States prohibited slavery at the founding. Congress abolished slavery in the Northwest Territories and prohibited importation of slaves as soon as the Constitution let it.
While the conclusions that Negros and fetuses respectively did not have constitutionally-confered automatic full citizenship rights were both based on an originalist approach, both Sanford and Roe reached out into thin air to reach the further conclusion that the constitution somehow prevented legislatures from conferring rights on them by statute, that courts could not adjudicate and uphold those rights, and that all laws intended for their protection were unconstitutional. The leap from one to the other had no basis at all, and certainly no originalist basis.
This is an odd claim. As the dissents by Justices McLean and Curtis show quite conclusively, Justice Taney's opinion has no basis in the original meaning of the Constitution's text and is refuted by the fact that free Blacks were among those who participated as part of "the People" in multiple state ratifying conventions. As best, Taney's opinion is an example of poorly done original-intent originalism, with an emphasis on "poorly done" as it tells us more about the mid-Nineteenth Century prejudices and slavery-defending white supremacist ideology than it does about the original meaning of the Constitution.
"As best, Taney's opinion is an example of poorly done original-intent originalism, with an emphasis on "poorly done" as it tells us more about the mid-Nineteenth Century prejudices and slavery-defending white supremacist ideology than it does about the original meaning of the Constitution."
I think that reinforces my point. "Originalism" is a fig leaf -- a label that bigots dearly love when it gives cover in getting them to the odious results they favor.
I suspect that Professor Adler, a Philadelphia native born in 1969, may have never seen a "Whites Only" sign and lacks an appreciation of how ugly human chattel slavery, de jure segregation and Jim Crow laws actually were.
Does an "originalist" contend that Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), was incorrectly decided? It was based on the Fifth Amendment, which was ratified in 1791 -- a time when black folks were legally prohibited from learning to read and write in much of the United States.
NG - you are confusing actual originalism with agenda driven anti - originalism masquarading as originalism. See my comment on Stevens bogus originalism / bogus history he used in his heller dissent.
Oh yes, presuming the bad faith of others is definitely a good faith argument why a judicial methodology is illegitimate. No, wait a second, sorry, it just exposes you as a partisan hack.
I guess that's the great thing about Living Constitutionalism: because you always end up with the correct result (according to you) there is never anything to criticize. By your definition can never be a results oriented decision, because the decision is always the correct result, by definition!
MaddogEngineer, I have never represented myself here as anything other than a proudly partisan Democrat.
The struggle for racial equality has been central to American history. Some folks appreciate the horrors of slavery, de jure segregation and Jim Crow; others do not.
not guilty 18 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Originalism is a result oriented scam. It produced one of the most despicable opinions in the history of jurisprudence:
A - Dred scott was the exact opposite of originalism. Taney may have been claiming originalism, but it was not. Similar to the bogus originalism used by Stevens in his Heller dissent. Basically where he made up S... about history.
Just because you call something originalist doesn't mean it is.
For example this sentence is clearly what Taney would like not what was:
"The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing."
It certainly is not originalism. It ignores the Naturalization clause which says Congress can define the terms of acquiring citizenship:
Then Section 2 refers to slaves as "persons", which would certainly include them in "people of the United States", along with every other class of the people:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "
Taney was not practicing originalsm because its plain that he is just expressing his own opinion: "We think they are not...", and quotes no authority for that proposition.