- Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the Supreme Court during a speech on Sunday.
- Barrett said the court is not partisan and expressed concerns over the public’s views of the court.
- “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” Barrett said.
- See more stories on Insider’s business page.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett defended the Supreme Court during a speech Sunday and expressed concerns about the public’s perception of the court.
“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” Barrett said, according to USA Today. “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.”
Barrett was speaking at an event for the 30th anniversary of the University of Kentucky’s McConnell Center, which was founded by Sen. Mitch McConnell, who introduced Barrett at the event.
Barrett, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2020 in a controversial confirmation, said justices must 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 also said the way the media covers the court and “hot takes on Twitter” contribute to the idea that the justices are making results-oriented decisions, rather than an interpretation of the law.
“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 said, USA Today reported.
Barrett was appointed to the court by President Donald Trump following the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, increasing the court’s conservative majority to 6-3.
Her speech came after a Supreme Court decision earlier this month declined to block a controversial Texas law that banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The decision was met with criticism, including from abortion rights advocates and President Joe Biden.
The court voted largely along party lines, 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal justices. However, the majority opinion said the ruling was technical and not based on the substance of the law, which can still be challenged in court.
Powered by WPeMatico