Conservative columnist says no one is buying the claim the Supreme Court isn’t partisan
White House Director of Strategic Communications and former lobbyist Mercedes Schlapp, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Brett Schlapp, head of the American Conservative Union lobbying organization, celebrating Kavanaugh's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court (Twitter).

Speaking to a group of supporters of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Justice Amy Coney Barrett tried to claim that the Supreme Court isn't staffed with a slew of partisan hacks. Many found it to be a strange claim since McConnell mocked Democrats when Coney Barrett was approved by GOP members.

Writing for the Washington Post on Thursday, conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin explained that no one is buying the claim. She cited "a raft of recent polls" showing that the High Court lost its luster with the public.

"Most dramatically, a Marquette University Law School poll finds the court's approval dropping from 66 percent a year ago (and 60 percent as recently as July) to 49 percent," wrote Rubin. "In the wake of the court's decision to unabashedly rewrite Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and to duck ruling on the Texas abortion bounty law, Democratic support plunged from 59 percent in July to 37 percent."

She explained that the public's opinion of political bias on the court goes up when people like Barrett speak at political events. It was once unheard of for a Supreme Court Justice to speak publicly, much less do television interviews or take paid speaking engagements.

"It's a practice worth restoring," she argued, "lest the public perceive justices as running a self-serving campaign to justify their right to a lifetime appointment with which to carry out their partisan mandates."

She explained that it isn't even because voters are angry about the absurd Texas law and that the court didn't strike it down. It's that "once the facade of impartiality and nonpartisanship is shattered, it is nearly impossible to get back."

After all, it long ago that a nominee raged, "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups!"

So, if the court is bothered by appearing to be a political entity, they need only look in a mirror, she explained.

Read the full column at the Washington Post.