Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett threw a shot across the bow at fellow activist judges, warning them that they are "not kings," but simply referees who decide whether people have played by the rules that are already established.
In an article for The Free Press written by Barrett, the SCOTUS justice reflected on her jurisprudence, making it clear that her personal views have no place dictating what happens when she's sitting in the highest court of the land, nor do any other justices.
READ MORE -->> Big: Supreme Court Rules on Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Cases
The Free Press headline read, "Amy Coney Barrett Speaks: People think the Supreme Court is about promoting justice. It's really about judging what the law requires."
On the restraint judges must exercise, Justice Amy Coney Barrett writes, “We judges don’t dispense justice solely as we see it; instead, we’re constrained by law adopted through the democratic process.” https://t.co/NewprhYtUn
— The Free Press (@TheFP) September 3, 2025
"On the restraint judges must exercise, Justice Amy Coney Barrett writes, 'We judges don't dispense justice solely as we see it; instead, we're constrained by law adopted through the democratic process,'" one post on X read about the article.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett firmly believes that her personal views should not compete with her duty to uphold the Constitution: “The guiding principle in every case is what the law requires, not what aligns with the judge’s own concept of justice." https://t.co/NewprhYtUn
— The Free Press (@TheFP) September 3, 2025
"Justice Amy Coney Barrett firmly believes that her personal views should not compete with her duty to uphold the Constitution: 'The guiding principle in every case is what the law requires, not what aligns with the judge's own concept of justice," a second post read.
And when it comes to the role of judges, Barrett wrote, "Like Americans more generally, judges hold diverse views about the values by which a just society should live. Yet under the Constitution, the choice between these competing views is made by citizens in the democratic process, not by judges settling disputes."
"On the bench, we must suppress our individual beliefs in deference to those that have prevailed in the enacted law," she added. "Our job is to protect the choices that citizens have made, even when we disagree with them…"
"[Judges] They are referees, not kings, because they decide whether people have played by the rules rather than what the rules should be," Barrett continued.
At one point, Barrett discussed her own personal views, such as when it comes to the death penalty, and made it clear that she can't let these beliefs clash with her duty as a judge.
"For me, death penalty cases drive home the collision between the law and my personal beliefs. Long before I was a judge-before I was even a member of the bar—I co-authored an academic article expressing a moral objection to capital punishment," Barrett wrote. "Because prisoners sentenced to death almost always challenge their sentences on appeal, the tension between my beliefs and the law is not one that I could avoid as a young law clerk, much less now as a judge."
"The people who adopted the Constitution didn't share my view of the death penalty, and neither do all my fellow citizens today," she added.
“If I distort the law to make it difficult for them to impose the death penalty, I interfere with the voters’ right to self-government,” writes Justice Barrett on not letting her personal views clash with her duty as a judge. https://t.co/N8ygSh6wzM
— The Free Press (@TheFP) September 3, 2025
"If I distort the law to make it difficult for them to impose the death penalty, I interfere with the voters' right to self-government," Barrett continued in a third post on X, that quoted from the article.
Justice Barrett's take on how judges should act on the bench reminded me of her stinging rebuke to the opinions of fellow SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson earlier this summer.
It was found in the court's majority opinion, Barrett wrote after the judges ruled 6-3 in favor of President Donald Trump's administration in the birthright citizenship case concerning nationwide injunctions, as my RedState colleague Sister Toldjah reported. And it is truly a thing of beauty.
Editor's Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump's agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member