Judge Barrett reflected in the first days, Trump’s cases in a rare interview

New York – Judge of the Supreme Court Amy Creey Barrett did not see the history of the servant. But she was well prepared to be interrupted by a certain number of demonstrators draped by red, if they storm to interrupt her confirmation audience, in the same way as for her colleague, Brett Kavanaugh, several years ago.

As she told an interview at Lincoln Center Thursday evening, the preparation was for nothing. Its confirmation took place behind closed doors, thanks to the COVVI-19 pandemic and the social precautions in place at the time. He also made the long confirmation process and his first days as a judge in the highest tribunal in the “clumsy” country, she said, laughing. “Very clumsy.”

This revelation was only one of the many Barretts made during a vast interview Thursday, just a few days before the publication of his next memories, “listening to the law”.

Like her book, Barrett’s appearance turned out to be so revealing for what she did not say about what she did.

Judge Barrett defends Jackson Jabs as an apparently rare “justified” public

Judge of the Supreme Court, Amy CONEY BARRETT, stands with her husband, Jesse, on the front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC (Al Drago / Bloomberg via Getty)

Barrett, 53, easily talked about her family, his faith and the kindness of her new colleagues from the Supreme Court, who, according to her, lent her not only the use of their office supplies and their bench memos during her first days at work, but also temporarily their own staff to help his phones and replenish supplies.

“There is an essential human element to judge,” observes Barrett in his memories, what she says is all the more true when he is on a bench of nine people.

“Thinking in categories on the left and right-it’s just the wrong way to think about the law,” she told the public full of Alice Tully Hall on Thursday evening.

Despite this, Barrett cleverly dodged some of the most polarizing problems with which the court has been faced in the past eight months.

She was clearly less candid on questions involving the emergency file, or “Shadow”, the vehicle by which President Donald Trump sought to temporarily remain decisions of lower jurisdiction which would have interrupted or interrupted some of his most radical decrees to take victory.

The Supreme Court presided over a record Blitz of emergency calls and orders filed by the administration and other injured parts during the first eight months of Trump behind. The judges on the conservative bench 6-3 ruled in favor of Trump in the majority of emergency requests, allowing the administration to prohibit transgender soldiers in the army, the cessation of millions of dollars in the subsidies of the Department of Education and its dismissal of probationary employees through the federal government, among other actions.

The court took the side of Trump in the majority of these requests, which aroused a new level of control – and rare public criticisms of some of his colleagues on the bench.

The Supreme Court “is at its best when it can examine cases that have been fully judged” by the lower courts, she offered, before the conversation moved on.

Barrett Éviscera Jackson, Sotomayor adopts a “accomplice” court of controversial final opinions

President Trump and Amy Condey Barrett on the balcony of the South Pelouse of the White House in Washington, DC, October 26, 2020. (AP photo / Patrick Semansky)

Barrett also sought to defend the court as an organization which operates beyond the policy of a given moment, and (ideally) outside the reach of public opinion. She noted that the perception of the public of what a judge should To do is sometimes in contradiction with what the existing Supreme Court Constitution and the previous court prescribe.

“I think everyone expects the court to deliver the results he loves,” said Barrett on Thursday evening. There is “a disconnection between what people want in the moment” and what the court should deliver, she said.

People “want what they want”, and will inevitably be disappointed with the results, she said.

Like other judges who have written memories on the bench, Barrett offered a noble vision and, sometimes, idealist of the court.

Pressed by journalist Bari Weiss about her majority opinion in Trump c. Casa earlier this year, Barrett insisted that his “spicy” remarks towards judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was nothing more than an attempt to “settle the right of calibration”.

“I thought Jackson judge had made an argument in strong terms that I thought justified an answer,” said Barrett.

Chief judge Roberts seems to be alarmed on a dangerous rhetoric intended for the judges of politicians

The judges of the Supreme Court Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy CONEY BARRETT, John Roberts, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor attend the 60th inaugural ceremony on January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC (Ricky Carioti / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The interview on Thursday evening was the first of the many public appearances that Barrett should give in coordination with his release of the book next week. He sometimes offered her a refreshing and refreshing overview of her five years at the Supreme Court, a job she says that she was not sure she wanted when the offer came.

Barrett told what her husband told her at the time when she weighed if she had to follow the confirmation process. If she chooses to move forward, he said to her: “We have to burn the boats.”

The sentence, adopted by Alexander the Great, refers to the idea that we must eliminate all the options of safeguard or retirement plans.

It was the one she held during the confirmation process, when the media pillaged her as a mother of seven years outside the touch and hyper-liging, when legislators, such as then-sen. Dianne Feinstein – “Dogma lives hard in you” – could have shaken it more.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

“To do the job well, you must have thick skin,” she told the public on Thursday evening.

She also rejected fears of a constitutional crisis.

“I don’t think we are currently in a constitutional crisis,” said Barrett. “I think our country remains attached to the rule of law. I think we have functional courts.”