During Thursday’s Supreme Court oral arguments over birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again proved herself a thorn in the side of her benefactor’s administration.
In a lengthy exchange with U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Barrett grilled the lawyer about the administration’s plans to follow judicial rulings.
“Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice Kagan that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a Second Circuit precedent, say, in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion?” Barrett asked Sauer point blank.
In response to Barrett’s question, Sauer answered, “Our general practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice.”
A shocked-sounding Barrett exclaimed, “this administration’s practice or the long-standing practice of the federal government?”
My understanding is that this is precisely why they have lifetime appointments — a judge can turn around and piss off those who appointed them and there’s little recourse, because they’ll never be up for election again (similar to the nominal purpose of academic tenure).
I think it’s a pretty bad system and there are a million better ways of doing things, but in this one instance the system is maybe working as (I believe it was) intended (even if she holds pretty reprehensible views in other aspects).
Not a lawyer, not a history buff, so grain of salt and all that…
I’m starting to wonder if she might be in the process of flipping a little bit. She’s been in a few 5-4 minorities with the liberals.
There are other possibilities. She could be following Catholic doctrine (the real Catholic doctrine, not USCCB), which is strongly against Trump on the immigration issue.
But I think it’s also possible that she’s just interested in preserving the power of the judicial branch.
Or she could have her own opinions, which sometimes don’t match the conservative agenda.
Nuance.
yes long term appointments of judges was meant to elevate them beyond politics.