CNN’s Paula Reid Roasts Trump-Appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett Over Note In Ballot Ban Case

CNN Chief Legal Analyst Paula Reid roasted Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett over a note on former President Donald Trump’s ballot ban case.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor in Trump v. Anderson in a 9-0 decision that overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling banning Trump from the ballot on the grounds that he violated the 14th Amendment by engaging in insurrection on January 6.

While the decision was unanimous, the opinions were not — Justice Barrett wrote her own opinion “concurring in part” while Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred “only in the judgment.”

All four felt the majority opinion went too far in deciding questions that were not necessary to decide. But in her opinion, Barrett appeared to scold the liberal justices for their expression of dissent:

The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.

On Monday’s edition of CNN Newsroom, Reid singled out Justice Barrett’s opinion for a note that “could come back to haunt her” as more and more heated questions come before the court:

PAULA REID: But I also want to talk about another concurring opinion, and that’s from Justice Barrett. And here, it’s interesting.

She she doesn’t want to sign on to what the liberals are saying, because they’re arguing that they went too far. She said, “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The court has settled a politically charged issue in a volatile season of a presidential election.”.

Yes! Fair! True. But, Laura, that’s what the Supreme Court does! (laughs) They settle volatile questions of national significance!

So this quote could come back to haunt her, because she goes on to say, “particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”.

But we know that’s not always what Supreme Court decisions do. So I get what she’s saying here. This is a time for consensus. A lot of questions about partisanship and ethics on the Supreme Court. For the good of the country we should all turn the temperature down, not up.

But that that could come back to haunt her in future decisions when, right? She goes against maybe her colleagues goes against the grain of the national consensus on things.

So interesting. The chief justice clearly had a lot of work to do behind the scenes to get a consensus here.

Watch above via CNN Newsroom.