

The Past, Present and Future of Amy Coney Barrett
Sep 28, 2020
Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, provides insightful commentary on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination. He discusses Barrett's conservative roots and influence from Justice Scalia, highlighting her potential to reshape the Supreme Court's ideology. The conversation contrasts her judicial philosophy with that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, raising questions about women's rights and abortion. Liptak also examines the politicization of the Court and the implications for public trust, offering a timely perspective on a crucial moment in American jurisprudence.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Conservative Legal Movement
- The conservative legal movement of the 1980s, frustrated with the Warren Court, developed textualism and originalism.
- These philosophies aim to constrain judges by interpreting laws based on their plain words and the Constitution's original meaning.
Gun Rights Case
- Amy Coney Barrett dissented in a case involving gun rights for a former felon.
- She argued that the Founding Fathers would only restrict gun ownership for violent felonies, not Medicaid fraud.
Activism Comparison
- Amy Coney Barrett's originalist approach, like finding historical views not explicitly in the Constitution, mirrors liberal judicial activism.
- Both interpret beyond the text, raising questions about their objectivity.