Amy Barrett Quotes

Recipe for a Perfect Wife, the Novel INGREDIENTS 3 cups editors extraordinaire: Maya Ziv, Lara Hinchberger, Helen Smith 2 cups agent-I-couldn’t-do-this-without: Carolyn Forde (and the Transatlantic Literary Agency) 1½ cup highly skilled publishing teams: Dutton US, Penguin Random House Canada (Viking) 1 cup PR and marketing wizards: Kathleen Carter (Kathleen Carter Communications), Ruta Liormonas, Elina Vaysbeyn, Maria Whelan, Claire Zaya 1 cup women of writing coven: Marissa Stapley, Jennifer Robson, Kate Hilton, Chantel Guertin, Kerry Clare, Liz Renzetti ½ cup author-friends-who-keep-me-sane: Mary Kubica, Taylor Jenkins Reid, Amy E. Reichert, Colleen Oakley, Rachel Goodman, Hannah Mary McKinnon, Rosey Lim ½ cup friends-with-talents-I-do-not-have: Dr. Kendra Newell, Claire Tansey ¼ cup original creators of the Karma Brown Fan Club: my family and friends, including my late grandmother Miriam Christie, who inspired Miriam Claussen; my mom, who is a spectacular cook and mother; and my dad, for being the wonderful feminist he is 1 tablespoon of the inner circle: Adam and Addison, the loves of my life ½ tablespoon book bloggers, bookstagrammers, authors, and readers: including Andrea Katz, Jenny O’Regan, Pamela Klinger-Horn, Melissa Amster, Susan Peterson, Kristy Barrett, Lisa Steinke, Liz Fenton 1 teaspoon vintage cookbooks: particularly the Purity Cookbook, for the spark of inspiration 1 teaspoon loyal Labradoodle: Fred Licorice Brown, furry writing companion Dash of Google: so I could visit the 1950s without a time machine METHOD: Combine all ingredients into a Scrivener file, making sure to hit Save after each addition.

A 2006 study by Amy Barrett and Brent Brodeski showed that “purging of the weakest funds from the Morningstar database boosted apparent returns on average by 1.6 percent per year over the 10-year period [from 1995 to 2004].

A legal career is but a means to an end. And that end is building the kingdom of God.

the government to require women to bear against their will—no longer exist.19 The Amy Coney Barretts of the world, this movement reasons, prove we already do have it all, or at least we could, if we just got up earlier to do push-ups and stopped being so lazy.

This is especially poignant when one thinks about social fragmentation. So-called “interracial” adoption is a lovely thing in basic human terms. Yet not long ago, Ibram Kendi tweeted this amid media coverage of Supreme Court Justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of “black” children (two from Haiti): Some White colonizers “adopted” Black children. They “civilized” these “savage” children in the “superior” ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.19 Kendi then argued that adopting such children in no way makes someone “not a racist”: And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can’t be racist.20 A writer for Christianity Today, Sitara Roden, spoke of her own adoptive background in a positive way, but also agreed with Kendi’s perspective on bias: This is a conversation I’ve had with my own white family. Just because I am not white and a part of their family does not mean their implicit biases are any less real. How you view the nonwhite person in your family, that you might have raised, is bound to be a different valuation than

The occasion was the nomination of Trump’s third appointee to the Supreme Court, the young federal appeals judge Amy Coney Barrett. She replaced liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an eighty-seven-year-old who had been in and out of hospitals for much of Trump’s term before succumbing to cancer. For weeks, when the subject of Supreme Court justices came up in meetings, Trump would clasp his hands together and look skyward, “Please God. Please watch over her. Every life is precious.” Then, almost winking, he would quickly look at his aides and say, “How’s she doing?” When another visitor came to the Oval Office, Trump asked, “She gonna make it? How much longer you think she has?

It was always about abortion. (185)

It may sound counterintuitive, as it did to my aunt, but making judgments about what the law requires isn’t always the same thing as deciding what is just. In the Boston Marathon bombing case, the Court held that there was no legal impediment to executing Tsarnaev, not that executing him was moral. In Terry v. United States, the Court held that the law did not permit resentencing, not that Terry’s original sentence was fair. And in the flag-burning case, the Court held that the First Amendment protected that act of protest, not that flag burning is virtuous. In a system where judges are not Solomons, their role is limited. They are referees, not kings, because they decide whether people have played by the rules rather than what the rules should be. As much as some people might admire Solomon, he wouldn’t make it through a confirmation hearing if he proposed to decide cases in accordance with his own conscience. That’s as it should be under our Constitution.

My writing tends to be spare, perhaps to a fault. When I was a law clerk for Judge Laurence Silberman, he once called me into his office and barked, “Amy, don’t be afraid of the adverb!” I’ve tried to take his advice. Still, I favor brief, clean sentences without extra words. My (obviously unattainable) target is more Hemingway than Dostoyevsky.

An Anti-Federalist who called himself “Federal Farmer” characterized the framers themselves as “the consolidating aristocracy” whose proposed system concentrated power “in a few hands,” rendering a “strong tendency to aristocracy now discernable in every part of the plan.”[117] In another tract, he warned that the capital city of the proposed republic would “be the great, the visible, and dazzling centre, the mistress of fashions, and the fountain of politics” that housed the equivalent of a royal court, complete with its hangers-on.[118]

The success of a multi-member court rides on the ability to disagree respectfully. The success of a democratic society does too.