Amy Coney Barrett’s passive
To listen to the full episode, join Slate Plus.
The Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to remain on the ballot in Colorado—and every other state—in an opinion on Monday that was less unanimous than it seems on the surface. Every justice agreed that a state cannot unilaterally disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot because of their participation in an insurrection. But the court split sharply on the question of how, exactly, the constitutional bar against insurrectionists holding office might be enforced in the future.
On a bonus Slate Plus episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick discussed these fierce disagreements, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s effort to bridge the divide, with Mark Joseph Stern and Jeremy Stahl. Their conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
AdvertisementDahlia Lithwick: In both the majority opinion and Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence, there’s such a vibe here of Y’all, we’re not fighting, we’re OK! Don’t worry about the court.Barrett says: “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.” And she adds: “Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.” There’s this weird, passive-aggressive vibe where everybody is kind of pissed off but telling us over and over again: We’re not fighting! We love each other! The court is working!This sense of performing unity and performing minimalism falls really heavily on the four women of the court in their separate concurrences.
Mark Joseph Stern:Right. It’s boys vs. girls. The girls are doing law. The boys are doing … something that doesn’t look a lot like law!
I guess we should give Barrett some credit for having a flash of integrity here. She did refuse to sign on to the part of the majority opinion that effectively repealed the insurrection clause by saying that only Congress can enforce it. She made it clear that she disagrees with the majority’s decision to, in her words, “address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.”
AdvertisementAnd that is ProfessorBarrett at her best. She does this from time to time: Last term, she wrote separately, in a case called Samia v. U.S.,to criticize Justice Clarence Thomas for manipulating history and representing it incorrectly. I think sometimes Barrett decides that she’s too smart and has too much principle to go along with the conservatives’ BS. But when she reaches that point, she feels the need to apologize for doing it. That’s what she did here, saying, “This is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.” By the way, I don’t think there’s anything in the liberals’ opinion that’s strident—that feels like an entirely unwarranted subtweet. And yet here she is, writing separately to say, basically:I think these guys in the majority went way too far, and I don’t really understand why. I find that to be an interesting rhetorical move. She didn’t have to do it. She could have just noted that she concurred with only part of the majority opinion. Instead, she went out of her way to chastise the majority. And yet she wants the country to walk away, thinking, Wow, they really do love each other. I just don’t think she can actually have it both ways.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementRelated From Slate
Mark Joseph Stern
The Supreme Court’s “Unanimous” Trump Ballot Ruling Is Actually a 5–4 Disaster
Read MoreJeremy Stahl: She really does seem to chastise the progressive justices. And then she tells them what the important part of their concurrence is. She says: “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.” So, forget all the rest of what the progressives wrote in their concurrence; forget their scorching opposition to what five justices did today. What the American people need to accept and appreciate is our unanimity. That’s all that really matters. She delivers this lecture with a little smack in both directions, to the justices on her right and left.
Lithwick: We have to look at this case in the context of the whole rest of the term too. We have the presidential immunity case, which the court is kicking down the road to April. We have abortion and guns and the administrative state and so much else. This is a bonkers term. And the justices keep saying: The one principle we’re all going to agree upon is that we decide cases narrowly as umpires. Nothing to see here! We’re fine!It feels less than persuasive to me.
AdvertisementI do wanna ask both of you about what didn’t get decided today. After we all spent a very long time trying to decide if the president is an “officer” under Section 3 of the 14thAmendment, the court didn’t touch that. Does it matter?
Popular in News & Politics
- The Lawyer Defending Idaho’s Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side
- We’ve Been Entertaining an Illusion About the Supreme Court. It’s Finally Been Shattered.
- You Don’t Want to Know How It’s Going Between Trump’s Lawyers and the Judge Presiding Over His Criminal Case
- Prosecutors Are Finally Revealing Their Strategy Against Trump
Stern:Clearly, the court was uninterested in ultra-technical, semantic, nitpicky arguments about whether the 14thAmendment covered Trump. There was some talk about it at oral arguments, but the court didn’t reach it, I guess because they didn’t need to. The concurrences didn’t really touch it either. And I think that was wise because the natural reading of the 14thAmendment does encompass the president. There are some counterpoints, but we should not get into them because, frankly, this is one of the most annoying legal arguments I have covered in my entire life.
Advertisement AdvertisementStahl: I think it’s also important to talk about the other piece they didn’t touch, which was the question of whether Donald Trump engaged in insurrection or not! The only way they touched it was to say: Well, different states might have different evidentiary standards. One might have a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Another might use a criminal conviction as the standard. There are different ways that states could decide this on an individual state-by-state basis, which is why we should not have states deciding this on their own.
But they didn’t actually touch the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that Trump did, in fact, engage in insurrection. And to the extent there was wisdom in the majority opinion, that was a wise thing to leave out. They were better off not wading into that, especially since it probably would have yielded an even more divisive and frustrating answer.
Tweet Share Share Comment-
The Analog Embrace: How Some Experiences Are Surviving the Digital AgeGrandpa accidentally films himself instead of marriage proposalCan't go home for Thanksgiving? Here are 11 stock photos you can argue withLittle French boy waves baguette at World Cup, help, help, I'm dying海丰芥蓝入选全国名特优新农产品名录Parties enter campaign modeFor once a British politician has brought joy to the nationTrump says new sanctions on North Korea 'unnecessary'Apple iPod: The First 10 Years of the Ubiquitous Media PlayerTrump says new sanctions on North Korea 'unnecessary'
- ·50 Places to Eat and Drink Before You Die
- ·Korea, Japan's Navy chiefs to discuss military collaboration
- ·Real Madrid’s heroics 'inspire' Nadal into quarters
- ·Apple shuttle buses rerouted following suspected attacks
- ·Anatomy of a Keyboard
- ·Spectacles newest surprise Snapbot pops up in Florida
- ·我市一学生赴京参加庆祝活动
- ·How Team USA is using VR to train for the 2018 Olympics in PyeongChang
- ·DNC 2024 speech: Barack Obama and Michelle Obama have a superpower no other Democrat has.
- ·Korea, Thailand to boost ties on satellite, smart cities
- ·Samsung Galaxy S9 and S9+ photos leak ahead of Feb. 25 release date
- ·Djokovic still struggling mentally to return to form
- ·两个改造提升项目进入收尾阶段
- ·The Google Arts and Culture app has a race problem
- ·New Sonos One deal is in direct competition with Apple's HomePod
- ·Apple announces iOS 11.3 coming in spring with iPhone throttle setting
- ·NASA's new plan keeps Starliner astronauts in space until 2025
- ·Download this: a practice app for HQ Trivia
- ·勇挑重担 为汉源美好明天添光彩
- ·天全牧区水利试点项目通过省级评审
- ·NASA's new plan keeps Starliner astronauts in space until 2025
- ·US military committed to stopping N. Korea's sanctions evasion: military chief
- ·省人大代表束祖飞:探索良性发展模式,打造绿色共富“金名片”丨代表通道
- ·Man Utd must sign two 'modern' strikers
- ·Which is Faster for Gaming, Windows 10 or Windows 11?
- ·化边缘为枢纽——访市委党校副校长张德义
- ·Ruling bloc seeks tougher sentences for deepfake sex crimes
- ·Work starts on ASEAN culture house
- ·谁在做减法?有巨头锐减80万头能繁母猪
- ·Check out the new trailer for 'Mythbusters’ producers' new Netflix project
- ·Kamala Harris’ ridiculous problem with the political press.
- ·Djokovic still struggling mentally to return to form
- ·'Seoul, Washington aligned on end goal on North Korea': Foreign Minister
- ·Understanding Relational vs. Non
- ·Revolutionary grid
- ·Djokovic still struggling mentally to return to form