Amy Coney Barrett just pocketed $2 million for a book that basically amounts to “I meant to do that” when it comes to wiping out abortion rights – and the spin is almost as cynical as the act itself. In “Listening to the Law,” Barrett insists the Court should “respect the choices that the people have agreed upon, not tell them what they should agree to.” Cute line from the same woman who told 170 million American women what they can’t do with their own bodies.
I call that gaslighting with a gavel. The fact remains that most Americans support legal abortion in most situations. Support remains steady after Roe’s overturn. But why would you get a ruling that reflects the will of the people when SCOTUS is made up of justices appointed by minority rule? Barrett insists the Court was simply honoring “the choices the people agreed upon.” Apparen’tly, “the people” in Barrett’s world excludes the majority.
She says she originally balked at taking up Dobbs, like she never anticipated the case resurfacing once the court had a conservative majority. Suuuuuure! But she ended up going along with the 5-4 vote anyway. Basically she’s saying that she knew it was a grenade, pulled the pin, and now wants applause for her courage.
The book cherry-picks history too – claiming abortion was “long forbidden” which conveniently ignores that English common law allowed abortions before “quickening” – around 16 to 18 weeks. Details like that tend to get fuzzy when you’re cashing a $2 million check. In the book, she tries to paint abortion as uniquely “morally complicated” compared to marriage, sex, or contraception.
Interesting timing given the Court is being asked to revisit same-sex marriage this fall. Translation: those rights are next on the chopping block. The money itself is its own indictment. A federal judge making $250,000 in taxpayer dollars decides to moonlight for $2 million six months into the job, with only two majority opinions under her belt.
Legal scholars called the optics “bad.” That’s putting it politely. Barrett also admits that “glossing over issues is often deliberate” and that vagueness is the price of consensus. In plain English: we intentionally write opinions that dodge accountability while still delivering the political results.
At least she’s honest about one thing. Trump put her on the Court to kill Roe. She killed Roe. Now she’s monetizing the kill shot with a glossy book tour. That’s not jurisprudence – it’s simply another grift.