Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is despised by the ideological left, as she replaced the late liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was nominated by former President Donald Trump and is devout in her Catholic faith and conservative beliefs.
It comes as little surprise then that some in the liberal media are alarmed over the news that Justice Barrett recently signed a major deal to publish a book.
Barrett scores a book deal
The news was first reported by Politico on Monday as part of a broader survey of the successes and travails of various other former Trump administration officials attempting to secure book deals.
Barrett reportedly won a $2 million advance deal on a book that, according to three unnamed publishing industry sources, will deal with how judges should not bring their personal beliefs and feelings to the bench or factor them into how they will rule on certain cases. One of the sources further claimed that the reported value of the deal was an “eye-raising amount” on par with lucrative deals in the past for autobiographies from Justices Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Conner.
The Associated Press reported a day later the jurist’s book would be published by Sentinel, the conservative-leaning imprint of Penguin Random House publishers. And while the head of Sentinel, Adrian Zackheim, confirmed the deal to the AP, he declined to provide any further details besides that the book would not be published this year.
Leftist journalists react
Some in the liberal media world were greatly displeased by the news of a book by Barrett, particularly its reported topic of judges leaving personal feelings aside when ruling on cases.
New York Magazine‘s Intelligencer’s Ed Kilgore riffed on the fact that it was almost certainly Barrett’s personal feelings that earned her a spot on the Supreme Court in the first place, particularly with an eye toward the possibility of overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.
He wrote, “Indeed, the reason her nomination was greeted with so many huzzahs from the Right is because it was assumed her ‘personal feelings’ as an observant Catholic and as a professor at a Catholic university would be brought to bear on abortion jurisprudence, making her potentially that fifth critical vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
And while Kilgore acknowledged the possibility that Barrett’s book could be about “constitutional principles” and “objectivity” on the high court, he made it abundantly clear that he had his doubts that that would be the case.
Slate: Book is “premature”
Likewise, left-leaning Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick chastised the reported deal as being “premature” in light of how recently Barrett had even become a judge, much less became a Supreme Court justice, and argued that she should first serve a decade or two and prove in that time that she can rule with bias before writing about ruling without bias.
Lithwick also found it difficult to even believe that Barrett, much less any judge, could actually put aside their own personal beliefs and made note of books by other justices that made the opposite case that it was, in fact, their own personal feelings and life experiences that informed their decisions on how to rule on various cases.
In the end, those two journalists and others in the media can continue to fret while Barrett serves on the Supreme Court and writes her book, and they can wait just like the rest of us to see what Barrett actually has to say before weighing in with their own “premature” reviews of the jurist’s unwritten tome.