There seems to be a lot of lingering bitterness on the Left about Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as the newest Supreme Court Justice—a choice Mountain States Legal Foundation cheered due to her impeccable credentials and strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. The Left’s animosity is manifesting itself in some laughably irrational and petty ways, reflecting the difficulty some are having in getting over the outrage addiction they developed during the Trump years.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and two other congressional Democrats recently demanded that Barrett recuse herself from a case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez, in which AFP is challenging intrusive California donor disclosure rules that seem designed to discourage and intimidate those who financially support conservative organizations or causes disliked by that state’s left-leaning rulers. Because AFP actively supported Barrett’s confirmation, the three Democrats claim Barrett couldn’t possibly rule impartially in the case.
The demands came only days before oral arguments were heard, timing that suggests this was a ploy to cast a shadow on the outcome. It was a continuation of the tawdry tactics of character assassination Barrett (serenely and gracefully) endured during her confirmation process. Barrett correctly rebuffed the demands, given the obvious malice and hypocrisy involved, and heard oral arguments in the case on April 26—the tenor of which suggests that California’s law will either be curbed or struck down.
Have such standards of recusal applied to left-leaning Justices who were endorsed by the ACLU or other liberal groups, which later brought cases before the Court?
No, of course not.
The Left attacked Barrett again recently after the announcement that she had signed a $2 million book deal. One blog called this “problematic.” Another said it seemed to raise “ethics questions.” The author of a piece on Bloomberg huffed that it was “bad optics” for Barrett, even while noting that Justice Clarence Thomas received a $1.5 million advance on his 2007 memoir and Justice Sonia Sotomayor received more than $1 million for her 2013 memoir.
A quick Google search shows that it’s actually quite common for Justices to author books. Liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer did it, as has conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Why the sudden indignation toward Barrett about something other Justices across the ideological spectrum have done? There’s no logic or consistency to any of it. It’s just more sour grapes from those who desperately wanted to deny Barrett a seat on the Court and still haven’t gotten over it.
Barrett, class act that she is, hasn’t stooped to calling out her critics for their hypocrisies and double standards. It just affirms that she’s not lacking in the judicial temperament the job requires, even if the same can’t be said for her perpetually disgruntled and temperamental critics.