U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said at a recent event that she welcomes public scrutiny of the court, but that individual justices are under more of a spotlight than in previous generations.
Because of the internet and social media, the public now knows the faces of the individual justices.
“People just didn’t recognize who the justices were” before the internet, Justice Barrett said during a judicial conference in Wisconsin on Monday. “I think that’s better. I don’t think justices should be recognizable in that sense.”
Justice Barrett noted that there are both good and bad aspects of the Supreme Court being in the news frequently.
“To the extent that it engages people in 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,” she said. “To the extent that it gives them misimpressions—that’s a negative development.”
Justice Barrett’s comments come as the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down pro-conservative decisions on certain matters over the past year that have angered Democrats and triggered accusations of partisanship.
Such decisions include ending Roe v. Wade, rejecting the Biden administration’s push for student loan forgiveness, and striking down race-based admissions in higher education.
This has pushed some Democrats to cry foul.
Term Limits
In June, Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) reintroduced the “Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act” seeking to establish 18-year term limits for supreme court justices.
“Our Founding Fathers intended for lifetime appointments to ensure impartiality. The decision today demonstrates how justices have become partisan and out of step with the American public,” Mr. Khanna said in a statement referring to the ruling against student debt forgiveness.
Justice Barrett spoke about alleged partisanship in the Supreme Court in September 2021 during a lecture hosted by the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center.
She insisted that the media’s reporting of judicial opinions failed to capture the deliberation involved in reaching such conclusions.
“Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” she said at the time. “To say the court’s reasoning is flawed is different from saying the court is acting in a partisan manner.”
