Barrett Sees No ‘Superprecedent’ in Roe

Judge Amy Coney Barrett looks on during a meeting with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) on Capitol Hill, September 30, 2020. (Sarah Silbiger/Pool via Reuters)
She understands the value of precedent and stability but also recognizes that a justice’s fidelity must be to the Constitution, not mistaken past decisions.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE T he indispensable Ed Whelan wrote not one, not two, not three, but four Bench Memos last week about Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s views on stare decisis, the legal principle compelling judges to adhere to precedent. Whelan’s posts were mostly written as rejoinders to hysterical critics of Barrett who accused her of being “right of Antonin Scalia,” and a “vote for [Clarence] Thomas-style radicalism.” They shouldn’t threaten us all with such a good time.

Whelan convincingly reveals these accusations to be rooted in partisanship, not a fair reading of her record. Indeed, Barrett has written nothing to suggest that she believes in

To Read the Full Story


The Latest

The King of Hypocrisy

The King of Hypocrisy

LeBron James and other NBA stars are happy to lament supposed American justices. But (almost) all of them are strangely silent about Chinese tyranny.