U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, offers a readable, if sometimes uneven, mix of memoir and manifesto. To her credit, Barrett directly addresses a number of controversial topics that are sure to interest most readers, including abortion and the death penalty. At the same time, however, her broader case for her preferred judicial philosophy leaves something to be desired.
Barrett's preferred judicial philosophy is originalism. Here's how she describes it:
Does interpreting the Constitution today require us to understand its historical meaning? Is it even possible to do so? And assuming that we can determine what the document meant when it was originally adopted, how can we apply it to the problems of the modern world? Though none of these questions is easy, I think the answer to all of them is yes.
