Justice Amy Coney Barrett Whines about How the Supreme Court is Perceived as Being Too Partisan

She is making excuses for betraying conservatism.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is whining about how the nation’s highest court is perceived by the American public as being too partisan.

Barrett, who was appointed by President Trump to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the bench last year, apparently cares more about placating the media than doing what is right as a justice.

She was introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at a recent conference hosted by the University of Louisville where she said it is of the highest priority of judges to be “hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too.”

Barrett added that “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” giving herself a ready-made excuse to punt whenever she faces a difficult case that could actually promote the cause of conservatism.

“To say the court’s reasoning is flawed is different from saying the court is acting in a partisan manner,” Barrett said. “I think we need to evaluate what the court is doing on its own terms.”

Big League Politics raised the questions on Barrett’s lackluster record before she was announced as Trump’s pick with conservatives deluding themselves into believing she was their champion:

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as the choice of Conservative Twitter to be the successor on the Supreme Court to replace deceased former justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Friday after many bouts of cancer.

However, Barrett’s record is troubling on many issues, with a ruling that gives Democrats in Illinois blanket authority to shut down society based on COVID-19 mass hysteria standing out as particularly heinous.

Barrett concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois to keep the illegal lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety. She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.

“At least at this stage of the pandemic, Jacobson takes off the table any general challenge to [Pritzker’s executive order] based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty,” the majority opinion read in the case.

It continued: “[W]hile in the face of a pandemic the Governor of Illinois was not compelled to make a special dispensation for religious activities, see Elim, nothing in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment barred him from doing so. As in the cases reconciling the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, all that the Governor did was to limit to a certain degree the burden on religious exercise that [the governor’s executive order] imposed.”

Conservatives need to realize that robed lawyers on the bench won’t save their rights from the organized globalist destruction of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Barrett’s abject failure as a justice should serve as proof of that.