'Era of polarization': Amy Coney Barrett hints at reason for SCOTUS docket loaded with Trump, censorship cases

[SugarDaddy1]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s current load of hot-button cases reflects Americans’ difficulties finding compromise.

Barrett addressed students at George Washington University, where she and Justice Sonia Sotomayor were interviewed during the Civic Learning Week National Forum. Without specifically naming any of the contentious cases facing the Supreme Court, which range from questions about censorship and to the prosecution of former President Doanld Trump, Barrett acknowledged that the issues on the docket stem from broader cultural problems in America’s “era of polarization.”

"I feel like, maybe in this era of polarization — of some would say bitter polarization — that that ability to compromise is being lost,” she said in response to a question about declining trust in institutions. “But institutions, I think, reflect back some things that are present in the citizenry themselves. I think that’s true of our docket.”

“Justice O’Connor used to say, if you want to know what’s going on in America, then you can look at our docket, and you can see some of the battles that are being waged through litigation are often reflective of the battles that are being waged in society at large,” she continued.

https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/12/...-scotus-docket-loaded-trump-censorship-cases/

 

[Fuzzy1975]

https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/12/...-scotus-docket-loaded-trump-censorship-cases/

Yes, you're a fine example of "compromise".

 

[PaxNurgle]

When lawmakers- or the Supreme Court itself- talk about removing rights that had been in place for generations (or more) then there should be no compromise. The court has been out of line there, and I would say not at all in line with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Otherwise, I would say that yes, in many cases, more compromise needs to be there. I would, for example, be perfectly okay with Donald Trump remaining a free man and avoiding the prison time he deserves, ONLY on condition that he is legally barred from ever holding public office again in any capacity- as per the Constitution (which again, the Supreme Court has conveniently chosen to ignore.) But sadly, I see no compromise there either.