Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.
That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.
When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.
When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed— requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.
NYT quotes CMC alum Liz Wydra:
“Amy Coney Barrett is everything the current incarnation of the conservative legal movement has been working for — someone whose record, and the litmus tests of the president nominating her, suggest will overturn Roe, strike down the A.C.A., bend the law toward big business interests and make it harder to vote,” Elizabeth B. Wydra, the president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, said, referring to the Affordable Care Act.
...
“Her opinions in death penalty-related cases certainly are not in line with church teaching,” Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said at the Heritage event, “and further suggest that she understands the oath she gives as a jurist is to apply the law before her whether or not that coincides with her personal moral or other beliefs.”
But Judge Barrett’s broad commitments to originalism and textualism do little to predict how she will vote on the Supreme Court, and some legal experts said they did not expect her to join decisions like the court’s ruling in June that a landmark 1964 civil rights law prohibited job discrimination against gay and transgender people. The majority opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch, perhaps the court’s leading textualist.
“In contrast to Justice Gorsuch, who seems to have more of Scalia’s libertarian bent than does Barrett, her style of conservatism doesn’t seem to hold any promise for L.G.B.T.Q. rights,” said Ms. Wydra, of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. “In fact, unlike some corners of the Federalist Society world, Barrett’s record doesn’t reflect really at all the type of conservative libertarianism that we’ve seen come out in decisions from Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Gorsuch or the late Justice Scalia.”
No comments:
Post a Comment