69

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Monday that public scrutiny of the Supreme Court is hardly new and should be welcomed, and that she has developed a “thick skin” about criticism of her role as one of the newest justices.

“With everything, there can be good and bad,” Barrett said at a conference of judges and lawyers. “With the court being in the news, to the extent that it engages people with the work of the court, and paying attention to the court and knowing what the courts do and what the Constitution has to say, that’s a positive development.”

The downside, she said, comes if there is a misperception about the court’s work or if there is the sense that it has “let people down.”

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago

She's not wanting oversight tho...

She's just fine with people talking about how corrupt she is, and that she's a religious extremist placed on the court to turn her cults rules into laws everyone has to follow.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

It's a lot easier to accept criticism when it has no power over your job, salary, perks, or lifestyle. SCOTUS sure wasn't "comfortable" when the public scrutiny was camped at their driveways.

[-] WytchStar@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago

She just means she doesn't give a shit if people think she's biased or corrupt.

[-] n0m4n@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

The court's work speaks for itself, far louder than Barrett understands. The misperception about the court's work lies in Barrett's skewed reality.

[-] Xariphon@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago

"Thick skin" = willing to ignore said oversight and everything it says (just like she does to the Constitution).

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

That's because she hasn't been there long enough to build up years of corruption and bribery yet.

[-] Shialac@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And I thought that was a requierement to even get the job

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

In her case, it was just willingness to lick Trump boot.

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I’m more interested to know whether she’s developed an understanding of our branches of government.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Thick skin can be a great asset against flak. What other mutations will she be seeking ahead of the mushroom wars?

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


She was gently interviewed by Diane S. Sykes, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago and a former colleague.

Criticism mostly concerns expensive trips taken years ago by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., underwritten by wealthy business executives and not disclosed in required annual financial reports.

Whether Congress has the authority to impose a specific code of ethics on the Supreme Court has divided Democrats and Republicans, constitutional experts and the justices themselves.

Alito earlier this summer was emphatic in an interview with a lawyer and editorial writer in the Wall Street Journal about Congress’s role.

Justice Elena Kagan wasn’t nearly as definitive when asked at a conference for the 9th Circuit in Portland, Ore. “It just can’t be that the court is the only institution that is somehow not subject to any checks and balances from anybody else,” she said, adding, “I mean, we are not imperial.”

And she said Justice Sonia Sotomayor sent Barrett’s husband, Jesse, back to South Bend, Ind., with Halloween candy chosen for each of her children.


The original article contains 766 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
69 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
1881 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS