Blogger Robert Hubbell reports that Justice Any Coney Barrett has won a $2 million advance on a book that explains how her personal views don’t affect her judicial decisions. Tell me another. Must be a very short book.
Hubbell writes:
Why does this feel like a “reward” for overruling Roe v. Wade?
Justice Amy Coney Barret has secured a $2 million advance from Penguin Random House for a book that will reportedly discuss “how judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule.” Given the dissonance between the proposed topic and Justice Barrett’s religiously motivated ruling in Dobbs, it is possible that the book is intended to be satirical, but there is little evidence that Barrett has a sense of humor.
So, the most reasonable explanations are that Justice Barrett (a) lacks self-awareness and any sense of shame, and (b) the shocking advance is an indirect “reward” for being the final vote necessary to overrule Roe v. Wade. To be fair, Barrett secured the $2 million advance for a book that can be summarized in a sentence fragment before she overruled Roe. To be fairer, there is little evidence that the German conglomerate that owns Penguin Random House has any interest in US politics—apart from monetizing controversy. A group of publishing professionals is calling on Penguin Random House to reconsider its deal with Barrett.
I, for one, cannot wait not to read Justice Barrett’s explanation of how her deeply held faith did not influence her vote to impose Catholic dogma on 320 million Americans. Perhaps future confirmation hearings can ask nominees for the Supreme Court if they intend to accept an obscene advance for writing a book of judicial fairy tales. That will give nominees something else to lie about besides their respect for precedent.
If you read Hubbell’s post, be sure to see his critique of the blunders of the Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus, which released a statement calling on Biden to negotiate with Putin about ending the war in Ukraine, then withdrawing their statement as a mistake. I agree with Hubbell. Any negotiation that doesn’t include Ukraine is ridiculous. Any negotiation that rewards Putin with Ukrainian territory for his aggression encourages more aggression. I fully support the heroism and courage of the Ukrainian people in resisting Putin’s naked aggression.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The Barrett book is probably a comic book … the progressive letter was disgraceful… I negotiated labor agreements all my work life, you always look for leverage, a third party with influence with management, for example, to release a public letter is the antithesis of negotiations, it only weakens your side, settlements have to be “sold” to both sides, the letter only emboldened Putin
Peter G., I completely agree about the progressive letter. It was a concession without negotiation.
Putin is now engaged in a war of elimination, approaching genocide. His goal is to starve the Ukrainian people and to make their lives intolerable this winter. He is destroying their electricity, their water, everything needed for survival.
What’s to negotiate?
His withdrawal? No.
How much Ukrainian territory he is able to take by force.
Settlements have to the “salesble” to all side’s constituencies… if I had an answer I’d be a Nobel Prize candidate, the Oslo Accords “almost” resolved Arab-Israeli bickering, twenty-five years later, still bickering, on the world scene who can be that trusted third party who can broker a solution?
No one can broker a deal with Putin.
He wants to seize as much of Ukraine as he can.
He will come back for more later.
Meanwhile he is destroying Ukrainian civilians, homes, hospitals, schools, power grids.
What can be negotiated with the Hitler of our time?
Good points.
We’ve all become, with reason, suspicious about Putin’s influence on the right wing in the U.S. After the progressives’ letter, we should broaden our concerns.
I think that there should be talks with Vladimir Putin at the International Court of Criminal Justice regarding his multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity as well as his crime of aggression against another U.N. member state and his murder of dissenters and opposition journalists throughout his career.
Bob,
I second that. Putin is aggressively destroying Ukraine’s infrastructure and many people are likely to freeze or starve this winter.
Putin is the definition of a war criminal.
As President of Brazil, Bolsonaro appointed a religionist like Barrett to the Court.
The recent Brazilian election for President echoes the U.S.
“Presidential Standoff Becomes a Holy War in Brazil” – that’s the description of the situation in the largest country in South America. Those of us who believe in democracy cheer Lula’s recent win (narrow) over Bolsonaro. The article at Religion News Service quoted a Catholic supporter of Bolsonaro who said, “The President cannot be pro-abortion and cannot be a socialist.” Bolsonaro’s opponent, Lula, is considered an “icon of the working class.”
In the U.S., the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (the political arm of the bishops) posted as preface to its 2022 Voters Guide, the following, “Catholics may identify and support…different political parties or platforms, we must always remember that we are first and foremost Catholic Christians.”
In contrast to Brazil, the Italian majority recently chose a fascist leader in their country. Italy is 80-90% Catholic. Brazil is 64-74% Catholic. Not all Catholics are right wing. However, the Gates-funded study about authoritarianism conducted by Catholic Georgetown University found that their is a link between religion and support for authoritarian political leadership,
If you believe she separates church and state, then you must conclude she’s schizophrenic. Afraid, however, that her judgments are a slave to her catholic views.
Fred, she does not know her own views. She thinks they are facts, not opinion. She is thoroughly indoctrinated.
Diane, I have to wonder if her views are really her own – or her husband’s.
As a handmaiden in the People of Praise cult, all major decisions are determined by the male head of the household. Coney Barrett may be simply a mouthpiece, and a dangerous one at that.
Her views are the Pope’s.
Justice rules that her religion had nothing whatsoever to do with her ruling that people must conduct themselves in a Biblical manner, in accordance with the rulings of the Council of Magistrates of the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the mid to late 1600s.
Interesting read-
Before the Dobbs decision, Tim Busch, a wealthy, politically active, right wing Catholic, wrote an article about the conservative judges of SCOTUS. It was posted at the Washington Examiner in April 2022.
Busch wrote at the Napa Institute about the similarities between Charles Koch’s book and Catholicism. Busch created an organization for Catholic CEO’s. Catholic organizations are the nation’s 3rd largest employer due to taxpayer funded services that should be government functions. There is a Catholic Medical Association and a Catholic Bar Association. And, there are university professors either employed by Catholic universities or who are tribalists, presenting an image of the Church in media that doesn’t jibe with organization’s like Matt Schlapp’s or goals like those of John Eastman.
Rhetorically, how much of this would be news to most Americans? And, if it’s substantial number who don’t know, why?
One of the shockers her book will reveal is that she could be SCOTUS’ swing vote on a case that would outlaw Jewish holidays. Anything to sell a book. Everything in this country has become a marketing hustle.
Maybe the SCOTUS crazies will overturn the Brown decision.
No low from this court would surprise me.
I think the Barrett book will turn out to be disguised extremist/fundamentalist/(fake)Christian propaganda.
“extremist”, yes, but, held by the majority in the White Christian, Catholic and Mormon demographic segments.
What’s next in Coney Barrett’s book deals? Stay tuned for “A Mother’s Guide to Raising Haitian Children in an Affluent Household.”
I can already see the kids autobiography title: My Life As a Prop
I like your title better. I was too easy her. An alternate title could be: “How I Taught My Black Children That Color Doesn’t Matter”
Amy Coney Barret has been on the SCOTUS for only 2 years and she’s cashing in with a lucrative book deal! Isn’t this a conflict of interest? She will be on the SCOTUS for decades, lots of time to write more books for more millions of dollars.
I had a similar thought as well. Scotus generally likes to be seen, but not heard outside of court decisions during their terms.
Whoops, actually loads of sitting justices wrote books. Sonia Sotomayor wrote “My Beloved World” and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote “My Own Words.” Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia, for example, wrote multiple books over the years. It’s a long list over centuries.
Conflict of interest means never having to say I’m sorry.
Haaaaaa!!!!!! OMG. ROFL!!!!
such great Christian values shining through: money money money
Penguin Random House is giving Barrett a $2 million advance as a reward for overruling Roe v. Wade?
Good to see you back, Flerp!
I wonder if they will pull out after the backlash.
Welcome back, FLERP!
OK, here’s my PSA for the day. Please sign the Zinn Education Project’s Teach the Truth Pledge, here. I did.
https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/pledge-to-teach-truth
Political influence between 2020 and 2022- Charles Koch gave money to the Atlantic Council. The think tank published a paper that critics labeled as pro-Putin. The paper was described as making the claim that democratization in Russia wasn’t a good idea for the U.S. Markus Dohle, the head of Barrett’s book publisher, was featured at an Atlantic Council event.
A situation of gifting money to right wing enablers accompanied by profit opportunity for business is not surprising. It’s naive to believe there is distance between monopolistic and oligopolistic market leaders and the backers of people like Barrett and Mitch McConnell.
She must be feeling guilty if she feels the need to exculpate herself.
“Religion Is Irrelevant” (by Amy Coney Barret)
I’ve got a lot of flak
For acting like a hack
So let me just explain
So people won’t complain
I’m really quite objective
Religion ain’t effective
At coloring the way
I rule from day to day
Despite how it may seem
There’s really not a scheme
To codify the Pope
It’s really just a trope
A poem that skewers the absurdity (if not lies) of Barrett
I guess she can write a book like every other public figure. I just came across a copy of One World by Wendel Wilkie
Media report that Barrett won the most money among the book-writing justices. The SCOTUS blog posted the university income that Barrett and Thomas get from Notre Dame. Gorsuch and Kava get their slice of university money from Koch’s university, George Mason, which was created as a public university until the administration gave it to Koch and other rich right wingers to run.
Interesting case study- Amanda Marcotte’s recent Salon article about evangelicals-
An excerpt follows, “Members of mainline churches, even Catholicism, are OFTEN (my caps) more moderate or liberal even than their churches.”
The article, in part, focuses on the recent abortion decision. There is no mention that the justices who overturned Roe were Catholic, not an evangelical among them. She also didn’t identify the fact that 63% of White Catholics who attend church regularly voted for Trump in 2020. Her history with criticism of the Catholic Church may explain the framing. Years ago, the day after she lost (resigned under pressure) her job with a Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign, she said she was “targeted by a right wing smear machine.” It was preceded by derogatory remarks she had made about the Catholic Church.
Lesson learned.