Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently commented on the increased attention drawn by the highest court in the land during an event at a judicial conference for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. According to reports by the Associated Press, Barrett reminisced on times during her clerkship at the Supreme Court when the public did not recognize the justices and visitors to One First Street often asked justices for assistance with simple tasks like directions or photograph requests.
While Barrett mentioned the benefits of public interest in the court’s work and constitutional understanding, she also highlighted the potential for this broader recognition to lead to misconceptions about the justices and their roles. She suggested that today’s intense scrutiny has led to a decline in the Court’s popularity and trust, partly caused by “misimpressions”.
However, criticism has been leveled at this interpretation. Observers argue that declining trust in the court is not due to misunderstanding but stems from actions by the current court members. Examples of such actions include overriding its own precedent, pursuing political objectives in ways radically divergent from mainstream American values, and using a reinterpreted version of originalism and disordered historical analyses to deprive citizens of rights they have enjoyed for decades.
Some contend that the erosion of trust is due to the conservative majority inclination to use various means to advance their idea of the future, while enjoying immunity from repercussions afforded by their lifetime appointments. These concerns have been echoed by those within the Court as well. Justice Elena Kagan has previously warned of the Court losing its legitimacy due to its recent decisions.
While Barrett may prefer obscurity, critics argue that transparency is vital for the public to understand the activities and decisions of the court. It is necessary for maintaining the accountability of a key democratic institution. It is also important to remember that such scrutiny should result in a more informed and engaged citizenry, rather than serving as a cause for division or misconception.
This commentary has been compiled from details available at Above The Law.