She has, to many minds, turned out to be a disappointment, but not on the latest decision not handed down by the court. When the Supreme Court opted not to stop a Texas law outlawing abortion if there is a heartbeat coming from the baby, Coney Barrett voted with her conservative brethren.
Barrett then tried to draw a comparison between “originalism,” which she says is her judicial philosophy, and Justice Stephen Breyer’s preferred method of legal interpretation, “pragmatism,” and cautioned interpreting the court’s decisions through the lens of political ideology.
“To say the court’s reasoning is flawed is different from saying the court is acting in a partisan manner,” Barret said. “I think we need to evaluate what the court is doing on its own terms.”
“The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results and decisions,” Barrett said. “That makes the decision seem results-oriented. It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong, based on whether she liked the results of the decision.”
“And here’s the thing: Sometimes, I don’t like the results of my decisions. But it’s not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want,” she added.
Coney Barrett added that the justices themselves are hyper-vigilant about not inserting their personal biases into opinions. That notion can certainly be challenged based on how they vote, that is for sure.