admin
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been on a quiet but deliberate media tour to promote her new memoir, Listening to the Law, and the message she keeps returning to is simple: the Court exists to apply the law, not to chase headlines or please a noisy public. Barrett used recent interviews and public appearances to explain how judicial restraint, textualism, and originalism guide her work and why judges must be insulated from the whims of public opinion. Her point isn’t subtle — the Court must remain a bulwark of order even when the marketplace of outrage demands otherwise.
“The law is not an opinion poll,” Barrett told interviewers, reminding viewers that justices do not craft decisions to curry favor or to win popularity contests. She said she refuses to let praise or criticism shape her reasoning, a stance few in public life can credibly claim in 2025’s age of performative outrage. That steeliness is not arrogance; it is the essence of justice in a republic where elected lawmakers, not roving majorities, decide policy.
Barrett also pushed back on hysterical claims of a “constitutional crisis,” telling audiences the Constitution and the courts are functioning as they should and that a true crisis would be something far more dire than media melodrama. Her reassurance matters because conservatives must be clear-eyed: preserving institutions means defending them from both raw political pressure and from self-inflicted delegitimization by those who mistake disagreement for corruption. The nation can disagree passionately about outcomes without tearing down the rule of law that protects our freedom.
Importantly for conservatives who feel betrayed when justices don’t always vote as expected, Barrett made a point of emphasizing judicial independence — she’s “nobody’s justice,” she said, and would not accept calls or pressure from politicians seeking favors. That answer should calm patriots who care about principle over partisanship; judges must be guided by law, not loyalty, and Barrett’s willingness to say that plainly is refreshing. If our side expects judges to follow the Constitution rather than a political playbook, we must be willing to uphold that standard even when it yields inconvenient results.
There will always be critics from the left who claim any conservative ruling is a power grab, and there will be voices on the right who demand rubber-stamp outcomes. Barrett’s posture is a reminder to both camps that a functioning judiciary requires fortitude, not frenzy. Conservatives should celebrate a justice who resists both mobs and political theater, while also holding the Court to conservative principles of interpretation rather than personal politics.
Now is the moment for responsible conservatives to rally behind the rule of law and the justices who actually practice it. We can — and must — be vigorous defenders of policy wins in the political arena while equally defending the judiciary’s role as an independent interpreter of the Constitution. Barrett’s clear message that law is not an opinion poll is a call to steady leadership: stand for principle, reject spectacle, and trust the institutions that still protect our liberty.
