SCJ Barrett says we need to "read the opinion" before before making judgments about the outcome

[bigtree]

Mark Joseph Stern @mjs_DC 1h
On Monday, Amy Coney Barrett said Americans should "read the opinion" to decide if a Supreme Court decision sounds like law-free policymaking.

Today, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision against the Clean Water Act—without issuing an opinion.

Link to tweet

LOS ANGELES – Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Monday that judges are not deciding cases to impose a "policy result," but are making their best effort to determine what the law and the Constitution require.

She urged Americans to "read the opinion" and consider the court’s reasoning before making judgments about the outcome.

"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.

https://news.yahoo.com/divisive-supreme-court-rulings-coming-042034615.html

...I judge this ruling, without any 'reasoning' provided, as political.

[highplainsdem]

1. Bullshit, Barrett.

[Budi]

2. Kagen was right to call out their "shadow docket" bullshit

@lawrencehurley
Supreme Court's conservative wing grant a shadow docket request brought by Republican-led states defending a Trump-era Clean Water Act regulation

Link to tweet

ref docket #21A539

Link to tweet

[Javaman]

3. if she has to claim that we should "read the opinion"

then she's just wall papering over her bullshit.

fuck off, barrett.

[genxlib]

4. It is idiotic

To think of Judicial opinions as somehow separate from politics.

Regardless of the education and intent, it is human nature to interpret through the lens of your own world view. So every opinion is political in that it represents the political views of the Justices.

It can be no other way. the Constitution is about 7,500 words. And with that 7,500 words, it is meant to offer guidance on the complexities of 300+ million people in a multi-trillion dollar economy with a society and technology not even dreamt of when it was written.

No matter how much we love it, that simply isn't possible. The only way it works is through interpretation and that really only happens at the individual level.

And to the degree it even was possible for a person to be independent minded enough to rule fairly, they would not make it to the court due to the process for selection. Those people just don't get nominated because its the politics that chooses the nominees.

[bigtree]

6. maybe they do apply their biases to their judgments

...but as Barrett correctly, albeit disingenuously pointed out, that would be made more clear by providing some record of their reasoning.

We're free, in that case, to apply our own reasoning to their decision. It's a mockery of the privilege and authority invested in that institution to keep those secret.

Having no obligation to reveal its deliberations, the written opinions of the Court are often the only guidance in implementing their decisions. Making their reasoning transparent is one of the surest ways to ensure the integrity of their judgments.

[genxlib]

7. No doubt that they should publish written opinions

I just don't think the idea of some high-minded independent thinking that is devoid of political thought is just not possible.

It might be different if the Constitution was the size of a set of encyclopedias but its brevity is entirely up for interpretation which is inherently political.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Don't look at my slight of hand, look at the other hand holding the golden bauble.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. This lady should never had been nominated for a slot on the SCOTUS

Link to tweet