The judges gave few, if any, hints about how they would handle those cases. But both President Barack Obama's appointee Sotomayor and Trump's appointee Barrett have emphasized that members of the high court do not see themselves as obligated to support their political patrons.
“Remember, luckily for us, presidents don't last that long, right? There are eight years,” Sotomayor said, to laughter from many in the room, including Barrett. “So being around one of them is a little crazy, you know?”
“Not just to the president, not to the political party,” Barrett interjected. “Life tenure isolates us from politics. And so not only are we not Obama and Trump judges, but we are not Democrat judges or Republican judges. We don't sit on opposite sides of the aisle. We all wear the same color black robe. We don't have red robes and blue robes.”
Questions about the justices' political loyalties are likely to arise as the upcoming rulings are released, especially since a third of the current members of the court were appointed by Trump, who moved the court to a 6-3 conservative majority and became the first president. since Ronald Reagan held three high court seats. Trump has also been unusually outspoken about his view that his appointees should make decisions for him, and he hasn't been shy about publicly criticizing them when they don't.
Sotomayor and Barrett both insisted that the justices maintained personal respect and warmth even as they grappled with issues that bitterly divide many Americans.
“When we disagree, our pens are sharp, but on a personal level, we never translate that into our relationships with each other,” Sotomayor declared. He said the judges maintain traditions, such as regular lunches where case-related topics are off-limits, and visiting each other's homes for lunch from time to time, something he said he has done with “virtually all” of his colleagues.
Barrett said he got a lot of dinner invitations when he first joined the court, and his family lived in Indiana most of the time.
“Justice Sotomayor showed up in my office with Halloween candy for my kids because it was Halloween time for my husband to come back to Indiana with him that weekend,” Barrett said. “Collegiality won't make you change your principles … but there is a way to disagree and meet each other where meet.”
Both justices insisted that their differences were less than they are sometimes portrayed in the press and argued that real differences are usually the result of judicial philosophy rather than political views.
However, they did not provide a clear explanation for why so many of the court's decisions on the most polarizing issues, such as abortion, same-sex marriage and immigration, often divide the court along ideological lines. Nor did they address why justices, who sometimes seem highly skeptical of the executive branch, often seem less skeptical when the White House is in the hands of a president of the same party as their nominee.
The image of a collegial and collaborative court offered by Sotomayor and Barrett has been in some tension with interpretations of the court offered by other justices in recent years.
In 2022, days after POLITICO's exclusive report that a draft majority opinion showed the Supreme Court was poised to end the federal constitutional right to abortion after nearly half a century, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas bitterly complained that the climate on the court had deteriorated in recent years. .
“This is not the court of that era,” said Thomas, who was confirmed in 1991, as he reflected on his first two decades on the court. “I sat with Ruth Ginsburg for almost 30 years, and she was actually an easy partner. … We may be a dysfunctional family, but we have been a family.”
In a series of speeches later that year, after the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in June overturning Roe v. Wade, liberal Justice Elena Kagan suggested that her colleagues were getting too much mileage out of lunch conversations and other pleasantries. of strange anecdotes.
“I don't see why anyone should care that I can talk to some of my colleagues about baseball if it becomes a better, more cooperative relationship about our affairs and our work,” Kagan told an audience at the University of Pennsylvania. that October. “It is in progress. I mean, some years are better than other years,” Kagan added. “Time will tell if this is a court that can get back to … finding common ground.”
The discussion featuring Sotomayor and Barrett was moderated by former D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Griffith as part of a series of programs launched by National Governors Association President Spencer Cox (R-Utah) and Vice President Jared Polis (D-Colo.). With the title “Better to disagree”.
While Sotomayor on Friday praised his colleagues for trying to show interest in each other's hobbies and pastimes, he laughed more, clarifying that he has no plans to follow in Kagan's footsteps and go hunting with a partner, as Kagan famously did with the late Justice Antonin. Scalia to follow through on a promise he made during his confirmation hearings.
“I'm a New Yorker. So does he, but he's lost it. He really has,” Sotomayor said. “There's no way you're going to get me up at the crack of dawn to go sit in the water waiting for the bird to land.”
Barrett suggested Kagan was a good sport to have tried hunting but could easily move on from it.
“Golf could replace hunting,” Barrett said.
Source link
Leave a Comment