#amy-coney-barrett — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #amy-coney-barrett, aggregated by home.social.
-
John Oliver on Trump’s use of supreme court shadow dockets: ‘his go-to method to get his way’ https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/may/11/john-oliver-trump-supreme-court-shadow-docket #JohnOliver #LatenightTvRoundup #Culture #UsTelevision #Television #TvComedy #Comedy #DonaldTrump #BrettKavanaugh #TelevisionRadio #UsNews #AmyConeyBarrett #SamuelAlito #UsSupremeCourt #TrumpAdministration #UsPolitics #LawUs
-
Samuel Alito justified a Supreme Court ruling that threatens majority-Black voting districts
https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/scotus-further-guts-voting-rights
-
In addition to #CivilRights, the court powered by #Trump’s picks — Justices Neil M. #Gorsuch, Brett M. #Kavanaugh & #AmyConeyBarrett — has pushed to the right of any modern court on #religious rights & #voting issues.
The court has also entered a new era of extreme #partisanship. None over the past 7 decades has been as starkly polarized.
“There is no center now,” said political science professor Lee Epstein, who performed the analysis with Andrew D. Martin & Michael J. Nelson. -
"...unless they were able to produce evidence that at least one of their biological parents was a #US #citizen or lawful permanent resident."
So then at what point does #AmyConeyBarrett and the other right-wing #SCOTUS "justices" demand that a #BiologicalParent" was verifiably a biological #Man or a #Woman at birth by their criteria? #SlipperySlope
-
Under #Trump approach, #foundlings given up for #adoption could be #stateless.
5 years ago, when #SCOTUS heard arguments over whether it should overrule #RoeVWade, Justice #AmyConeyBarrett asked a series of questions about #SafeHaven laws, which allow parents to anonymously surrender newborn #babies at hospitals or firehouses, without fear of prosecution.
#law #BirthrightCitizenship #immigration #Constitution #WhiteSupremacy #WhiteChristianNationalism #hypocrisy
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/birthright-citizenship-foundlings.html?smid=url-share -
Lees tip -> Trump haalt hard uit naar 'domme' rechters Hooggerechtshof | Donald Trump valt rechters van het Hooggerechtshof aan na uitspraak over illegale importheffingen. "Een schande." | #DonaldTrump #importheffingen #VS #NeilGorsuch #handelsoorlog #AmyConeyBarrett #Hooggerechtshof #JohnRoberts |
https://hbpmedia.nl/trump-haalt-hard-uit-naar-domme-rechters-hooggerechtshof/
-
Trump’s global tariffs have finally been overturned. What next? | Steven Greenhouse https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/21/trumps-global-tariffs-supreme-court #TrumpTariffs #UsNews #UsSupremeCourt #DonaldTrump #Tariffs #UsCongress #JohnRoberts #AmyConeyBarrett #NeilGorsuch #Business #UsPolitics #FederalReserve #UsEconomy
-
#Trump is clearly fuming at the 2 justices he nominated in his first term who sided against his #tariffs.
“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth. The two of them,” Trump said of #Gorsuch & #AmyConeyBarrett throwing a bit of #StochasticTerrorism into the mix.
He said, “their decision was terrible.”
#law #economy #inflation #affordability #CostOfLiving #geopolitics #SCOTUS
-
#Trump thanked Justices #ClarenceThomas, Samuel #Alito & Brett #Kavanaugh by name “for their strength & wisdom & love of our country” for dissenting from the majority.
Of the other conservatives justices who voted to knock down his tariffs — Chief Justice #JohnRoberts & Justices #AmyConeyBarrett & Neil #Gorsuch — Trump said, “they’re just being fools & lapdogs for the RINOs & radical left Democrats.”
Trump said they were “very unpatriotic & disloyal to our Constitution.”
-
Trump tariffs ruled illegal by Supreme Court
Trump tariffs ruled illegal by Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision that blocks sweeping emergency tariffs and reaffirms Congress controls taxation.https://thedemocracyadvocate.com/2026/02/trump-tariffs-ruled-illegal-by-supreme-court/
-
These 6 treacherous Trump lackeys will never be forgotten — or forgiven
https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-2674378826/
-
Three Ways You Can Tell Trump Is Lying about Tariff Rebates
-
After 2.5 hours of oral argument before the #SupremeCourt about whether Trump's trillion dollar #Tariffscheme is unconstitutional or illegal, all comes down to which way #NeilGorsuch and #AmyConeyBarrett flip. It was a very skeptical bench today, and made the #MAGA6 SQUIRM! youtu.be/nun-zD45msM?...
Trump SKEWERED at BIGGEST HEAR... -
We’re on the Unfuck Stage of Trump’s Abuse of Power
-
Jim Obergefell warns, ‘People should be concerned’ about Supreme Court considering marriage equality case
https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/news/kim-davis-obergefell-scotus
-
Opinion – Amy Coney Barrett Is Looking Beyond the Trump Era – The New York Times
The Supreme Court justice isn’t making decisions based on public opinion. Credit…The New York Times.Opinion Interesting Times
Amy Coney Barrett Is Looking Beyond the Trump Era
The Supreme Court justice isn’t making decisions based on public opinion.
There’s a roster of cases before the Supreme Court that could reshape the entire Trump presidency and redefine executive power. And my guest this week, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is likely to be the decisive vote in some of these cases.
Unfortunately but predictably, that means that she couldn’t or wouldn’t respond to my most direct questions about the Trump administration.
But my goal was to push the justice on a question that she can answer, and one that she addresses at length in her new book, “Listening to the Law.” I wanted to know whether her preferred legal theory, originalism, can bend and flex in response to prudential and political concerns.
Barrett believes strongly that it shouldn’t, that justices should rule without worrying about public opinion or who happens to be in the White House. But I tend to think real-world politics constantly tests and limits that ideal. So in our conversation, I’m trying to find those limits and the ways in which even justices devoted to the original meaning of the Constitution have to deal with the highly unusual pressures of right now.
Amy Coney Barrett Doesn’t Need You to Like Her
The Supreme Court justice isn’t making decisions based on public opinion.
Below is an edited transcript of an episode of “Interesting Times.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. Editor’s Note: Embedded from Spotify below.
Ross Douthat: Justice Barrett, welcome to “Interesting Times.”
Amy Coney Barrett: Thank you for having me, Ross.
Douthat: I honestly would never have said no. [Barrett chuckles.]
Your book is mostly about — and we’re mostly going to talk about theories of jurisprudence, the place of the Supreme Court in American life, possibly some issues related to the Trump presidency and executive power — but it does start with a little window into the personal world of Amy Coney Barrett, so I’m going to start with a couple of questions about that terrain.
We looked it up, and you are the first guest we’ve had on the show who has more children than I do — which is only because we haven’t yet succeeded in booking Elon Musk, I should say.
Barrett: [Laughs.] There’s still time for you to catch up with me.
Douthat: That’s a bold statement. I appreciate your confidence in my youthful energy and vigor.
When you were being nominated, this newspaper, The New York Times, ran a story that talked about your mix of personal and professional obligations and how it made you a certain kind of trailblazer. And the story described you — and you can accept this description or not — as “a woman who is both unabashedly ambitious and deeply religious, who has excelled at the heights of a demanding profession,” even as she speaks openly about prioritizing her faith and family.
I’m curious if you actually see yourself this way at all? Do you see yourself as a particular kind of trailblazer or role model in that kind of balancing act?
Barrett: I don’t see myself as a trailblazer, nor do I love the word “ambitious,” because I feel like the word “ambition” puts a focus on success or ambition for its own sake, which isn’t how I’ve ever conceived of my career.
When I was growing up — I was born in 1972 — my mom stayed home, and the parents of most of my friends had a working dad and a stay-at-home mom. My kids have had a mix, and for them, it’s become unexceptional to have a mom that worked, whereas it felt like a big thing for me to make the choice because my own mother had a large family — I’m one of seven — which is, I say in the book, that’s what I always wanted. That was my No. 1 priority. And I wasn’t sure that I could do that and work at the same time, but I always have, since I had our first child.
So I think my life looks different than the life of my mom and my aunts and my friends’ parents at the time, but it’s one that my own daughters and sons and their friends, I hope, can just treat as unexceptional. Like, you can stay home if you want. You can work if you want. You can do both.
Douthat: Do you think of yourself as a feminist — a conservative feminist, if that is a category that you would accept?
Barrett: I don’t know, labels are so dangerous because they mean different things to different people. I mean, if being a feminist simply means having the view that women can do whatever it is they put their minds to and have opportunities open to them, then yes, I am.
But I think any stripe of feminism that you describe is going to have — labels are risky. So I’ll just say: Yes, yes, labels are risky.
Douthat: Labels are risky, especially when you are charged with the interpretation of the entire U.S. Constitution.
Barrett: [Laughs.] It’s so true.
Douthat: How do you actually do it? And I say this as someone who, obviously, works. Here I am working. My wife is a journalist and writer, and we do a lot of the same kind of balancing that you and your husband have done, and it takes some strange forms. But it’s very challenging. Any number of kids is challenging, but to have a large family and have a busy professional life — I’m just curious: As a Supreme Court justice, how do you feel like you guys make it work?
Barrett: A lot of people ask. That’s probably the question that I get asked most often.
Continue/Read Original Article Here: Opinion | Amy Coney Barrett Is Looking Beyond the Trump Era – The New York Times
#2025 #America #AmyConeyBarrett #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #InterestingTimes #Interview #JusticeBarrett #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Podcast #Politics #Resistance #Science #SCOTUS #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #Technology #TheNewYorkTimes #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpEra #UnitedStates
-
Sorry, have to laugh right now as #AmyConeyBarrett says to Mooppan than it is a “big ask” to reconfigure #Gingles because its a 40 year old #precedent.
Is she serious?
Can you say #RoeVWade?
#SCOTUS #hypocrisy #law #VotingRights #VRA #CivilRights #ActivistCourt #WhiteSupremacy
-
Justice Barrett’s Tone-Deaf Defense Of The Shadow Docket Comes As Federal Judges Revolt Against Supreme Court’s “Mystical” Orders
-
Amy Coney Barrett Responds to ‘Heated Dissent’ With Supreme Court Justices
Source: Newsweek
#AmyConeyBarrett
#SupremeCourt
https://share.newsbreak.com/ffsu54yp -
Samuel Alito 'not suggesting' marriage equality should be overturned
https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/samuel-alito-overturn-marriage-equality
-
The sham of oral arguments on conversion therapy is meant to show SCOTUS is 'unbiased'
https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/voices/supreme-court-conversion-therapy
-
Clarence Thomas says past SCOTUS rulings aren't 'the gospel' and can be overturned
https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/clarence-thomas-precedent-marriage-equality
-
Reviews of Amy Coney Barrett’s New Book “Listening to the Law”
Reviews of Amy Coney Barrett’s New Book “Listening to the Law”
This review selection covers a broad spectrum, from early promotional and explanatory pieces to critical and even harsh negative assessments, balanced by some supportive takes emphasizing judicial insight and personality. The range presents a clear view of the mixed reception to Barrett’s book and public appearances after its launch. Article prepared by Perplexity Pro, edited by DrWeb.
Here is a gathered selection of reviews for Amy Coney Barrett’s new book “Listening to the Law,” released on September 9, 2025, including critical and negative perspectives, with links and brief comments about the nature of each review:
CNN (Early Access Preview)
An early preview by CNN highlights Barrett’s defense of overturning Roe v. Wade and insights into Supreme Court dynamics. It is descriptive and largely factual without strong critique, providing context on the book’s themes and Barrett’s perspective.
Wall Street Journal (September 8, 2025)
A more balanced review by the Wall Street Journal emphasizes Barrett’s judicial philosophy and intellectual approach. It acknowledges her kind personality and methodical thinking, though with subtle critical tones about public understanding of the Court.
“Barrett’s book offers a sober, disciplined account of her judicial philosophy, marked by humility and care.”
New York Times (September 8, 2025)
The New York Times offers a critical but nuanced review describing the book as bland and meticulously crafted, suggesting Barrett’s guarded writing style and lack of relatability or revealing insights.
“The memoir is painstakingly careful, offering little in the way of vivid personal anecdotes or bold revelations.”
Balls & Strikes (September 14, 2025)
A strongly negative review by Balls & Strikes calls the book unnecessary and superfluous, criticizing Barrett’s portrayal of the Court and accusing the book of political whitewashing and lack of meaningful engagement with controversial issues.
Yahoo/MSNBC coverage (September 13, 2025)
The Yahoo/MSNBC coverage provides a negative media critique labeling Barrett’s book tour and book performance as poor and unready for popular attention, reflecting harsh criticism from liberal media commentators.
“MSNBC called the book tour ‘floundering’ and suggested Barrett was unprepared to engage a wider audience.”
Reddit Community Reaction (Washington DC subreddit)
Community feedback on Reddit expresses disappointment and boredom from Barrett’s book talks, noting lack of substance and public enthusiasm.
“The book talk was so bad, barely holding anyone’s attention.”
Divided Argument Blog by William Baude (September 11, 2025)
A positive review by the Divided Argument Blog praises Barrett’s integrity, judicial philosophy explanation, and relatable anecdotes. The author recommends it as a good primer on the Court despite disagreement with some opinions.
Slate Commentary (September 5, 2025)
Slate critiques Barrett’s use of biblical references, accusing her of misrepresenting both law and scripture to push ideological points.
#2025 #America #AmyConeyBarrett #BookReviews #Books #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #ListeningToTheLaw #NonFictionBook #Opinion #Politics #Reading #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates #Writing
-
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.: The Architect of Conservative Jurisprudence – A Special SCOTUS Series
Source: Wikipedia. By Steve Petteway – http://www.supremecourthistory.org/history-of-the-court/the-current-court/chief-justice-john-roberts-jr/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=596761Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.: The Architect of Conservative Jurisprudence – Here’s a look at our Chief Justice, his life, background, and how he influences our legal challenges, legal issues, from his conservative views. This report was prepared by Perplexity Pro, and edited by DrWeb.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.: The Architect of Conservative Jurisprudence
John Glover Roberts Jr. has served as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States since September 29, 2005, presiding over one of the most transformative periods in Supreme Court history. As the youngest chief justice in over a century at age 50, Roberts has authored landmark conservative decisions while attempting to balance institutional preservation with ideological advancement over his two decades of leadership.
Early Life and Formation
Born on January 27, 1955, in Buffalo, New York, Roberts was the second of four children to John (Jack) G. Roberts Sr., a Bethlehem Steel Corporation executive, and Rosemary Roberts (née Podrasky). The family’s Catholic faith would prove formative, as would their move to Long Beach, Indiana, in the early 1960s when Roberts Sr. received a promotion to work at a new steel plant.
Roberts excelled academically from an early age, graduating first in his class from La Lumiere School, a Catholic boarding school in Indiana, where he also captained the football team. To help pay for college, he worked summers in a steel mill, an experience that grounded him in working-class values despite his later elite academic trajectory. His early ambition was to become a historian, reflecting an intellectual curiosity that would later influence his judicial approach to constitutional interpretation.
Academic Excellence and Early Career
Roberts completed his undergraduate degree at Harvard University in just three years, graduating summa cum laude in 1976 with a major in history. He remained at Harvard for law school, where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1979. These academic achievements established him as one of the brightest legal minds of his generation.
Following law school, Roberts secured two prestigious federal clerkships that would shape his career trajectory. From 1979-1980, he clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most respected federal judges of his era. He then clerked for Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist during the 1980 term, establishing a mentorship that would profoundly influence his judicial philosophy.
Government Service and Private Practice
Roberts’s early career alternated between high-level government service and elite private practice. From 1981-1982, he served as Special Assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, then moved to the White House as Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan from 1982-1986. During this period, he helped craft conservative legal positions that would later inform his judicial decisions, including memoranda expressing skepticism about discrimination remedies and civil rights enforcement.
In 1986, Roberts joined the prestigious law firm Hogan & Hartson as an associate, becoming a partner within a year. His appellate practice was extraordinarily successful, focusing on Supreme Court litigation and complex constitutional issues. From 1989-1993, he returned to government as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, the second-in-command in the Office of the Solicitor General, where he argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court.
Marriage and Family Life
Roberts married Jane Marie Sullivan in 1996, a fellow attorney and Harvard Law School graduate whom he met during his government service. The couple has two adopted children, Josephine and John, and their family life reflects Roberts’s commitment to balancing professional demands with personal relationships. Jane Roberts has maintained her own successful legal career, though she has faced scrutiny for potential conflicts of interest related to her legal recruiting work while her husband serves on the Court.
Path to the Supreme Court
By WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY BRIAN LEHNHARDT – Federal judicial nominees listen to President George W. Bush as he announces their nominations. WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY BRIAN LEHNHARDT – https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/05/images/20010509-3.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76274597President George H.W. Bush first nominated Roberts to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992 when he was just 37, but the Democratic-controlled Senate never held a confirmation vote. Roberts returned to private practice during the Clinton years, also teaching at Georgetown University Law Center.
In 2001, President George W. Bush renominated Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, and he was finally confirmed in May 2003. During his brief two-year tenure on the appeals court, Roberts wrote approximately 50 opinions that demonstrated his conservative judicial philosophy and exceptional legal craftsmanship.
Bush initially nominated Roberts in July 2005 to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, but when Chief Justice Rehnquist died in September, Bush elevated the nomination to Chief Justice. Roberts’s confirmation hearings featured his famous “umpire” analogy: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them… I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” The Senate confirmed him by a vote of 78-22 on September 29, 2005.
Judicial Philosophy and Constitutional Interpretation
Roberts advocates for judicial restraint, originalism, and textualism in constitutional interpretation. He believes judges should apply law neutrally rather than engage in creative lawmaking, though critics argue his major decisions have often advanced conservative policy goals. His approach combines respect for precedent with willingness to overturn liberal rulings he views as constitutionally flawed.
As Chief Justice, Roberts has consistently emphasized institutional integrity and incremental change over revolutionary jurisprudence. However, his leadership has coincided with the most conservative Supreme Court in nearly a century, creating tension between his institutionalist instincts and ideological objectives.
Major Opinions and Legal Impact
Healthcare and Federal Power
Roberts authored the pivotal decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), upholding the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a constitutional tax. This decision surprised conservatives but demonstrated Roberts’s complex approach to federal power and his occasional willingness to break with conservative orthodoxy to preserve institutional legitimacy.
Civil Rights and Voting
In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Roberts authored the majority opinion striking down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, arguing that federal oversight of state voting laws was no longer necessary. This decision enabled numerous states to implement voting restrictions, fundamentally altering American voting rights protections.
Presidential Power
Roberts has authored several opinions expanding executive authority, including Trump v. Hawaii (2018) upholding the Muslim travel ban and Trump v. United States (2024) establishing broad presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. These decisions reflect his deference to executive power in areas of national security and foreign policy.
Race and Education
Roberts authored Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), ending race-based college admissions programs nationwide. This decision fulfilled a long-standing conservative goal and demonstrated Roberts’s willingness to overturn decades of precedent when advancing originalist constitutional interpretation.
Leadership Style and Court Dynamics
As Chief Justice, Roberts assigns majority opinions when he votes with the majority, a power he has used strategically to shape legal doctrine and maintain control over controversial decisions. His leadership style emphasizes consensus-building and narrow rulings, though the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority has enabled broader conservative decisions than Roberts might prefer.
Roberts has presided over significant constitutional developments including marriage equality, religious liberty expansions, Second Amendment jurisprudence, and abortion rights. He also presided over President Trump’s first impeachment trial in 2020, maintaining judicial decorum during highly partisan proceedings.
The Roberts-Barrett Partnership: Mentorship and Judicial Alliance
A defining aspect of Roberts’s tenure has been his evolving relationship with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom he has cultivated as a key ally in advancing conservative jurisprudence while maintaining institutional credibility. Since Barrett joined the Court in 2020, Roberts has strategically assigned her significant majority opinions, including the landmark Trump v. CASA decision that expanded executive power while limiting federal court authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
Roberts’s mentorship of Barrett reflects both personal and strategic considerations. Early in her tenure, he assigned her a complex property rights case where she initially drafted a majority opinion but later changed positions—a bold move that could have antagonized the Chief Justice but instead demonstrated her independent judicial thinking. Rather than penalizing this judicial evolution, Roberts has continued to entrust Barrett with increasingly important assignments, including cases involving Native American rights and religious liberty.
Barrett’s judicial philosophy closely mirrors Roberts’s own approach to constitutional interpretation. Both justices embrace originalism and textualism, seeking to interpret constitutional and statutory language according to its original public meaning rather than evolving contemporary understanding. Like Roberts, Barrett demonstrates judicial restraint and institutionalist concerns, often preferring narrow rulings over sweeping constitutional pronouncements. Their shared commitment to incremental conservative change has made them frequent collaborators in cases where Roberts needs a reliable fifth or sixth vote for majority coalitions.
The Chief Justice appears particularly attentive to Barrett’s contributions during oral arguments and conference discussions, recognizing her potential as a swing vote who can attract liberal justices to conservative positions. In several high-profile cases, Roberts and Barrett have joined with liberal justices to constrain Trump administration overreach, demonstrating their shared concern for judicial independence and separation of powers. This partnership has frustrated some conservatives who expected Barrett to be more ideologically rigid, but it has enhanced Roberts’s ability to control controversial decisions and maintain Court legitimacy while still advancing conservative legal principles.
Legacy and Long-Term Impact
After twenty years as Chief Justice, Roberts has fundamentally transformed American constitutional law through conservative jurisprudence while maintaining the Court’s basic institutional framework. His tenure has seen the steady advancement of originalist constitutional interpretation, limited federal regulatory power, expanded religious liberty protections, and strengthened executive authority.
Critics argue that Roberts has enabled a “constitutional revolution” that contradicts his stated commitment to incremental change and judicial restraint. Supporters contend he has restored constitutional text and original meaning to Supreme Court jurisprudence while preserving essential democratic institutions.
Roberts continues to navigate the tension between conservative legal advancement and institutional preservation as he enters his third decade of service. His ultimate legacy will depend on whether his leadership produces lasting constitutional change or triggers backlash that undermines judicial authority. As both the youngest Chief Justice in over a century and one of the longest-serving, Roberts’s influence on American law will extend far beyond his eventual retirement.
Bibliography and Sources
Primary Sources:
- Current Members. Supreme Court of the United States. July 12, 2017.
- 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary. Supreme Court of the United States. 2024.
Government and Institutional Sources:
- Judicial Nominations – Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. George W. Bush White House Archives. August 7, 2008.
- Roberts, John Glover, Jr. Federal Judicial Center. June 29, 2022.
- John G. Roberts, Jr. Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.
- Chief Justice John Roberts. Justia Supreme Court Center. September 28, 2005.
Academic and Scholarly Sources:
- Biography and Judicial Philosophy of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Seton Hall University Scholarship.
- Chief Justice John Roberts and the Combination of Conservatism and Institutionalism. Illinois Law Review. August 30, 2023.
- The Philosophy and Jurisprudence of Chief Justice Roberts. University of Utah College of Law.
- The Judicial Philosophy of Chief Justice John Roberts. Emory International Law Review. February 3, 2021.
- In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court. William & Mary Law School.
- “In Search of Justice: An Examination of the Appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito”. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. April 22, 2014.
- Federalism Rebalancing and the Roberts Court. Harvard Law Review. May 1, 2025.
News and Analysis Sources:
- John G. Roberts, Jr. | Biography, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Britannica. August 14, 2025.
- The Current Court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Supreme Court Historical Society. March 27, 2022.
- In 20 years under John Roberts, a dramatic rightward turn for the US Supreme Court. Reuters. September 8, 2025.
- This Is the Presidency John Roberts Has Built. The Atlantic. July 21, 2025.
- The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts. Aspen Ideas Festival. August 19, 2025.
- Understanding John Roberts: A Conservative Institutionalist. JURIST. July 30, 2020.
Roberts-Barrett Relationship Sources:
- Initially wary of Trump, Roberts and Barrett offer the former president a victory. CNN. June 28, 2025.
- The behind-the-scenes power John Roberts wields to shape Supreme Court decisions. CNN. July 2, 2025.
- Amy Coney Barrett Is The Most Interesting Justice On The Court. Original Jurisdiction (Substack). July 2, 2025.
- Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts Become a Thorn in Trump’s Side. Newsweek. March 6, 2025.
- Amy Coney Barrett’s Biggest Supreme Court Allies Revealed. Newsweek. July 15, 2025.
- Supreme Court’s Roberts turns court to the right as Barrett becomes influential. NPR. July 1, 2024.
- How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left. The New York Times. June 15, 2025.
- Opinion | Trump resistance needs Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts. The Washington Post. March 27, 2025.
- Closing the book on the term. SCOTUSblog. June 30, 2025.
- Amy Coney Barrett. Wikipedia. May 7, 2017.
#2025 #America #AmyConeyBarrett #ChiefJustice #Conservative #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #JohnRoberts #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #RightWingConservative #Science #SupremeCourt #Trump #TrumpAdministration #USSupremeCourt #UnitedStates
-
#AmyConeyBarrett scrambles over BACKLASH from the public and lower court judges, calling out an emerging pattern of the #SupremeCourt no longer doing their job but instead CONTINUOUSLY just siding with Trump, as an ALARMING ruling in favor of #ICE proves the DISASTROUS truth youtu.be/t44a8ietUJs?...
Amy Coney Barrett SCRAMBLES Ov... -
Justice Amy Coney Barrett spoke with @CBSNews correspondent Norah O'Donnell recently. Here's what she said about Roe v. Wade, the "shadow docket" and whether the Supreme Court has an agenda. Justice Barrett has a book out at the moment, so she's doing lots of interviews. She also spoke to Fox News' Brett Baier about President Trump's "third term" talk — find @TheHill's reporting on that at the second link.
https://flip.it/ZBaSen
https://flip.it/kIgX0k#AmyConeyBarrett #SupremeCourt #TrumpAdministration #DonaldTrump
