CNN Chief Legal Analyst Paula Reid criticized Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurring opinion in the Trump v. Anderson case, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Donald Trump. The case overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to ban Trump from the ballot, citing a violation of the 14th Amendment due to his alleged involvement in the January 6 insurrection.
Reid pointed out that Justice Barrett’s note in her opinion could “come back to haunt her.” In the quoted passage, Barrett emphasized the need to avoid amplifying disagreement with stridency, stating that the Court settled a politically charged issue in a volatile season of a presidential election. She urged for writings on the Court to turn the national temperature down, not up, highlighting the importance of consensus.
Reid acknowledged the call for consensus but raised concerns about the practicality of achieving it in Supreme Court decisions, given their nature of settling volatile questions of national significance. She suggested that Barrett’s emphasis on turning down the national temperature might be challenged in future decisions where the Court’s rulings might not align with the national consensus.
PAULA REID: But I also want to talk about another concurring opinion, and that’s from Justice Barrett. And here, it’s interesting.
She she doesn’t want to sign on to what the liberals are saying, because they’re arguing that they went too far. She said, “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The court has settled a politically charged issue in a volatile season of a presidential election.”.
Yes! Fair! True. But, Laura, that’s what the Supreme Court does! (laughs) They settle volatile questions of national significance!
So this quote could come back to haunt her, because she goes on to say, “particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”.
But we know that’s not always what Supreme Court decisions do. So I get what she’s saying here. This is a time for consensus. A lot of questions about partisanship and ethics on the Supreme Court. For the good of the country we should all turn the temperature down, not up.
But that that could come back to haunt her in future decisions when, right? She goes against maybe her colleagues goes against the grain of the national consensus on things.
So interesting. The chief justice clearly had a lot of work to do behind the scenes to get a consensus here.
